User talk:Jclemens/Archive 10

Thanks
In god knows how many years of reading Arbcom proposals, that (Timidguy ban appeal) must be the sanest one I have seen given what you had to work with. In fact I registered just to congratulate you and the others involved. Good job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful that the level of care and effort we put into getting that one right shines through. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It really does. Addresses the concerns of fairness in ban appeals, the various aspects of 'how far should/can an admin go', and ultimately that certain types of behavior on WP wont be tolerated. However as a cynical person, I dont think some of them have a hope in hell of making it through. Especially after the letdown that was the civility decision. Which has ended up with someone slapped on the wrist for being uncivil, but no actual plan of action on preventing the same behavior in the future. But I really really hope I am pleasantly surprised. Also, dont take my choice of nickname as any sort of comment on your position ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the civility decision is a call to the community to get its act together; it's a lot easier to deal with one particular person who is behaving contrary to expectations, vs. a whole group of people who are each collectively acting less than ideally. As such, you don't find too many sanctions, but there is a bunch of groundwork laid for future discussions, sanctions, and enforcement. Culture change doesn't happen overnight, even when it's calling a community back to its own self-stated ideals. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I might stick around to see if it works. I suspect even the most light-handed methods of attempting to direct culture change (even if its just reminding WP editors of what we/they want to be!) are going to go awry. However since my areas of interest on WP (mainly because of my job) lie in its editor dispute/mediation & arbitration, I might have to go back to lurking. But feel free to point me in a direction if you think I should go active. My talkpage is now open. And also uncluttered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unexpectedly almost all passed. I have a hat to eat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it will have been a rather sweeping outcome that I did not anticipate either. Jclemens (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of text that has been taken up by certain people over the years in Arbitration, perhaps it was just a case of the straw that broke the camel's back? Not that I am suggesting Arbcom are camels. Granted my time at work is now going to be less interesting as I suspect I will have less to read in my spare moments. But once again, well done, a bright spot in the recent cases.Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration policy
A question related to one of your posts: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests.  Will Beback   talk    04:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there... but that was a relatively simple answer to find. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion
(Cross-posted to you and AGK)

I thought I should let you know that I had some questions about the wording of PhilKnight's proposed motion here. Your input there might be helpful. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a comment here about the WP:SHARE issue that Roger Davies mentioned. The thread is so long now that I'm afraid it might be overlooked.


 * I'd always thought that WP:SHARE means that I shouldn't edit race and intelligence articles, not that I shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all. Contributing to science articles and creating illustrations for them is important to me, and I'm currently in the middle of writing the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article among other things. If Arbcom is going to consider a site-ban for me (which seems to be what Roger Davies is suggesting), I hope the other arbitrators will give some careful consideration to whether my involvement in the project is really doing more harm than good. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion on that talk page. If you're worried about things being overlooked, posting separately here certainly won't help any. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rajiv Chhabra
Hi Jclemens, I came across this page, Rajiv Chhabra, and noticed that it had been previously deleted by you. Since it doesn't seem very notable, I thought I should check and see if it should be removed again. The creator also created a related article, NRI Cell, which doesn't seem notable either. Those were the only two edits that user has made. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make a new deletion nomination (after following, WP:BEFORE, please) if you remain unconvinced of these articles' notability. Jclemens-public (talk)

Question
During your election campaign I made some comments about you on the election discussion page, indicating that I thought there had been various problems in the handling of the abortion case, for which you had been the main drafter. The problems mentioned there were not unrelated with Captain Occam's subsequent site-ban on wikipedia. After you were elected—and this is only a vague recollection, which I have not checked with diffs—you made some acidic comments about those who had made remarks about you during your election campaign, which I suppose must necessarily have included me. You also seemed at an earlier stage to have "adopted" Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin as your "pets". (That impression could be faulty.) In the circumstances, do you think it is completely appropriate, per WP:INVOLVED, to be making any kind of comments in the amendment request at the moment? Do you not think in fact that it would have been more appropriate for you to have recused from discussion on-wiki or off-wiki in early January? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one of the more exasperating things about the whole situation was your assumption of bad faith on my part. When Occam was here trying to get me to sanction you, I suggested instead that he help out by reviewing publicly available evidence (talk page diffs showing inappropriate conduct).  As I said before, I did this to try and distract him from your common and seemingly intractable dispute.  You chose to opine that such was a biased handling of the situation, which is your right.  However, administrator action does not trigger WP:INVOLVED--only personal or editorial-level disagreement, and I am not recalling any instance where I have been in a content or intepersonal dispute with you.  Likewise, when someone participates in the electoral process, that doesn't trigger INVOLVED either, else each arbitrator would have to recuse on each guide writer and every editor who had offered a public opinion, good or bad, on the arb as candidate. Having said that, I would be inclined to recuse if the solution were an outright sanction on you, instead of a bilateral interaction ban.  As is, I think there's enough objective evidence that you and Ferahgo don't need to be interacting that I'm not particularly concerned about the appearance of impropriety.  Still, I'll ask the rest of the committee what they think about it, and if the general opinion is that it would be better for me to recuse, then I will--of course, this might have the unintended consequence of getting some arbs to comment more quickly on the interaction ban proposal. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, the message to the rest of the committee seeking input just now went out. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Moot now. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. For the record, the response was rather anemic, but unanimous that there was nothing which would prompt my recusal. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Undelete Article
Hi,

Can you please undelete the Article Greenware (computing)?

Regards, DSp

Found here: http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1467 http://wordweb.info/free/licence5.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.2.164.178 (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was done yesterday. I tagged it for notability, feel free to improve it. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC COI
Thank you for commenting on my view. It gave me a whole new perspective about the things happening in Wikipedia. FYI, I have further clarified my opinion below your statement.-- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 06:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied in email, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks a lot for overturning G11 on the page DesignTech Systems created by me. Prateekshah03 —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC).
 * You're welcome. Please work to improve it beyond what it is now.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do so for sure. Thanks again for the assistance! prateekshah03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.147.103 (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Refactor your comments
Refactor your weak and misguided attempt at snide condescension. It is unbecoming of an Administrator, and most unbecoming of an Arbitrator, to insult the intelligence of other editors engaging in productive dialogue, especially in a RFC. Ordinary mortals without an official Wikipedia Bag-o-Tricks get their hands slapped here at Wikipedia for such comments. Fladrif (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've misconstrued my statement. By saying "you really ought to read up on game theory", I'm 1) assuming good faith that your failure to get the point is not an obstructionist debating tactic, but that you really don't understand what I see as a flaw your proposal, and 2) that such failure to understand is easily fixed by you thinking through game theory--that is, that it stems from ignorance rather than any lack of intelligence. If you don't know where to get started with game theory, I'd recommend Games of Strategy by Dixit and Skeath (c.f. Google Books). One of my key problems with the solutions proposed by you and others is that the reward 'bad' behavior and penalize 'good'; you're not the only one proposing things like this and such approaches, as a class, have what I believe to be a fatal flaw. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this seems like a much more reasonably priced introduction to game theory. Haven't read it, and its reviews are so-so, but I hadn't realized how expensive a new copy of the current edition of Games of Strategy actually is. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, your personal variant on Hanlon's Razor with anyone who questions your reasoning, or perhaps more accurately, your lack of precision in the choice of words to express your reasoning is "don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance"? Nice. And you think that's an improvement how? I'm going to assume that you have no idea what degrees I hold; what books and papers I read; what books and papers I write. I'll again suggest...strongly...that you refactor. But, in the interest of collegiality, let me recommend to you another authoritative text on game theory:
 * Don't f*ck with eagles unless you know how to fly. Blutarksi, Bluto Animal House (1978)
 * Just don't consult the 25th Anniversary Edition - it inexplicably edited out that scene. Fladrif (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have editor A and B. Both are COI editors.  A chooses to disclose his COI per the recommendation, and is harassed, hounded, and scrutinized.  He jumps through whatever hoops are considered necessary prior restraint on his edits.  B chooses not to disclose his COI and makes unremarkable contributions: maybe NPOV, maybe slightly not, but not egregious enough to draw any attention.  B has an easier time of it than A, regardless of the motivation of either editor.
 * Now, add to this that we have no reliable way to detect whether A or B are COI editors. Checkuser data (which is not for fishing...) is only able to ascertain the barest of facts about an editor's connection.  Without invoking WP:BEANS, suffice it to say that any reasonable effort to avoid CU connecting an editor and his or her employer is likely to succeed.
 * Thus, you propose an optional--and unworkable if mandatory--step that discourages editors from taking it because it offers them only downside without any reasonably expected upside. I will never support a change in policy that penalizes (or whatever term you want to use) forthright and honest behavior and rewards (again, substitute something else if desired) sneaky behavior.  If that doesn't make sense... then I cannot help you. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the point entirely. So, I'll spell it out. Slowly.
 * I have no problem with your disagreeing with my recommendations or others of the same ilk. You've at least acknowledged that your "penalty" and "reward" rhetoric is off base, when what you are really talking about is simply incentives. But, this is not the place for debating the merits of the various proposals at the RFC, and that was not my purpose in posting here.
 * My fundamental objection, and the reason that I raised it on this page rather than at the RFC, where it would be a distraction, is that you appear incapable of expressing your disagreement, however imprecisely, without coupling it with insults bordering on personal attacks.
 * Rather than acknowledge that your gratuitious comments were wildly inappropriate and refactoring them as requested, you double down instead.  Bad form, and definitely conduct unbecoming an Arbitrator. As I said above, "ordinary" editors get sanctioned for far less. Fladrif (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So all this is because you are splitting hairs between "incentives" and "rewards"? I've reread the discussion in light of that revelation, and have no apologies to offer you for my attempt to help you understand what I meant.  I also do not apologize for insults that I did not make, nor for perceived personal attacks in my attempts to help.  I am sorry that you're seeing such where they do not exist, but that's outside my control. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The intellectual version of WOW
Should be of some interest to you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Another one of PaoloNapolitano's accounts
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37049&st=40&p=300601&mode=linear#entry300601

Special:Contributions/MichaelJackson231 – You probably should block MichaelJackson231 as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears my colleagues have been handling this situation while I was unavailable. Thanks for the heads up. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User Coolsvilleowner
Please can you look at the message left for you on the talk page of Coolsvilleowner? Thank you. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 08:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I would like to say thank you for unblocking me and keep up the good editing. Coolsvilleowner (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Best wishes editing productively. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My userpage
It has been removed without myself being notified, so could you restore the old revision before it was removed. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Television episode and season articles badly needed
Since you supported the template reformat, you might want to be involved in filling in some of the most important articles. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but I doubt I will be participating, since none of those episodes are for shows I actually watch. My editing habits and userboxen are a pretty good indication of what I will work on, and there are a ton of notable Sci Fi episodes that meet the GNG yet are redirected to series articles simply because no one has taken the time to improve them. I realize that may not be "most important", but I work best on that which I know. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC
There is an RfC in which you would probably be interested.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented there, thanks. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Simon Wicks 2012.jpg
This image has been restored. Nevertheless, it is relisted for FFD discussion. You discussed it in Deletion review/Log/2012 March 6, so you may be interested to improve the consensus results. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but my comment was on the closer's failure to provide a rationale. I have no particular opinion on the retention of the image, but I will say that I do NOT think it's a case of a clear-cut failure to meet NFCC#8. Jclemens-public (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Schultz


The article Richard Schultz has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Insufficient sources for the personal information stated, and insufficient material for an article without those statements. Insufficient evidence of notability apart from the trial, see WP:BLP1E.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Undelete article
Hi,

Can you please undelete the Article ;

Erik Lidbom

I'm currently updating the info about this song writer.

Thanks in advance, Jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblasphm (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Restored, but that was pretty much a waste, as it's just one sentence. I've also used the WP:BLPPROD process on it, such that you need to add sources within the next few days or it will be deleted again. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

War of Souls
Because you have recently participated in AFDs regarding Dragonlance, I am alerting you that War of Souls is up for deletion. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

please undelete this page
TreeDBNotes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsteiner (talk • contribs) 04:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to improve it. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What leads to editor frustration
Here's a case that may make you despair. Even two administrators (the blocking one and the one commenting afterwards) don't see what's right in front of them in the edit history. I can quite understand why people swear at and insult administrators and editors. It is quite hard to have administrative decisions made after such superficial analyses, and yet retain one's cool. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743
 * I find that even when you tell people "you're missing something", it's not terribly common to see people actually go back and do the research needed to come to the conclusion you've already reached. One tactic I find helpful is the "Did you notice X, Y, and Z?"--it's a question that both educates them on what you think the issue is, as well as gives them an out to say "no, I didn't notice that" and change their take on something.  Telling people "you're wrong!" isn't as reliable as asking "wouldn't you rather consider this additional information?" in my experience. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm getting at (even if that had been what had happened in this instance). What I'm getting at is that this is a good example of what happens.  We get a superficial analysis from administrators, and the person who used the naughty word gets blocked for using the naughty word, without even a peep as to the revert warring, the quite obvious stalking of edits, and what was actually happening to the encyclopaedia.  If you truly are going to defend the editors from the rashness of administrators, as you've recently said, it starts with getting the administrators to put thought into their decision making processes.  It starts with remembering that punishing people for getting angry doesn't actually deal with the cause of the anger, and may indeed instead serve to exacerbate it.  Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Mr. "one commenting afterwords".
In the ANI thread, I have compared his responses to his spellchecking to one I received early in my editing career. One thing I failed to notice was that there was a difference. The "warning" I got was posted by a human typing on his keyboard and hitting the save key, the warnings that VC got were Uw-Robo-nastygrams probably script posted. Maybe if Summer or some of those others tried explaining it to him the way that Dreaded Walrus explained it to me, he wouldn't have reacted the way he did. And yes I was bothered by some of those diffs, particularly the one that said How am I supposed to know that some particular misspelling is used by a bunch of retards in another part of the world who are incapable of using the English language correctly. Was that something he said because he "lost his cool" or does he actually hold that view? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Deviant Sound Records
As you deleted it first time (before the prod was contested, I believe), I thought I'd let you know about this.
 * Thanks for the notification, but I have no strong feelings or personal experience about the article's notability. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Perplexed and hurt
I'm perplexed as to why you and the others signed up to the following, and very hurt that you did.


 * 5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

If you have any examples of where you feel my contributions to discussion did not reflect sufficient receptiveness to compromise and/or too low of a tolerance for the views of other editors, I would very much like to know where, and why you think that.

If you don't know of any such examples, why did you agree to this?

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you're not articulating any particular reason why my personal conduct, rather than my conduct as an arbitrator supporting particular remedies in an open case, is at issue here, I'm going to redirect you back to the relevant talk page for the case. Remember, if I bore you any personal ill will, I would have already recused myself.  On the other hand, a "warning" offers no specific sanction, merely an expectation of improved conduct on those areas going forward, so it is little more than formal advice--a written warning, rather than a citation of an infraction, as a topic ban would be. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bore me ill will? That possibility did'nt even cross my mind  Why would it? I'm just trying to understand what you think I did that warrants giving me this advice. However,  if you can't explain how the statement to which you agreed applies to me, actually applies to me, I can start listing all kinds of personal behavior problems with that.  But I'm assuming I'm missing something.  Yet, I know of nothing on those talk pages or anything in my history that indicates I'm not receptive to compromise or am intolerant of the views of others.  What are you talking about?   --Born2cycle (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the talk page of the decision is the better place for this conversation. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser
Would it be possible to perform a Checkuser regarding Willsnoogbaroots and the IP address 77.97.87.115? Unconstructive modifications, mainly undoing other users' constructive and accurate edits, were made on an article several times. The intervals of time between each of the disruptive edits performed by the accounts suggests that the editors are in fact the same person, which edits unconstructively "under IP." Thank you. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you ask at WP:SPI? Since I sit on the audit subcommittee at the moment, I generally don't run sockpuppet investigations except on my own initiative, such that I would be recused on any review of the action anyways. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a case related to sockpuppetry. A disruptive user is thought to constantly sign in and out to make unconstructive modifications on articles, "under IP." --MaxDawsonC (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disruptive IP editing is also handled at WP:SPI. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

When will pending changes be added to this site
When will "pending changes" be added to this site?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an open question. There is currently an RfC open on the future of pending changes on the English Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * does any of the positions on the rf need a certian number of votes?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not specifically, no. Consensus will be evaluated at the end of the comment time, which is normally 30 days, and then next steps will be evaluated based on the strength of that consensus. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Game of Thrones episodes
Hello, I'm very impressed with your work on the Game of Thrones episodes (loved the series and the books!), and I've noticed every episode is now a Good Article, doesn't that mean that you could nominate them all for a collective good topic? Gday, Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 17:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I intend to, but by convention a season of television has a featured list article outlining the season. Game of Thrones (season 1) is not yet to that quality, but once it is, a good topic should be a slam dunk.  I'm looking for an opportunity to nom it for FL, once I have the time to clean it up and monitor it.  I already took it to peer review and got some helpful suggestions. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Who handles watchlist notices?
Hey, JC. Can you refer me to somebody who'd be appropriate to talk to about the watchlist wording for the "abortion article RFC", in re the difficulties mentioned in this edit? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I have absolutely no idea. I've never worked with those announcements before. Does any TPS know?  If not I can (and probably should...) find out. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's handled at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details? Who knew. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

COI RfC
Any idea if ArbCom or anyone else is going to do anything with the information provided by the community at Requests for comment/COI? Seems like the discussion has dried up. What are the next steps? I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at some point, one or more uninvolved administrators will try and sort through the dialogue and try and assess consensus. I think that the most likely outcome is a follow-on RfC with more clearly defined terms and a set of more finite questions, since this one seems to have ranged all over the place and accomplished little or nothing. A well-crafted RfC should attract far more attention, and this one ended up with a small group of people mostly talking past each other, from my perspective. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:


 * 1) Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
 * 2) If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
 * 3) If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (parsing the above...) 1. No, 2. N/A, 3. N/A. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My bands wiki Name (band) was deleted...
Hello there,

Awhile back, my band had a wikipedia page on here that was pretty accurate. I don't know who made it or who requested it be deleted, but I was hoping it could be restored? I came to make some edits and then noticed it was no where to be found. If at all possible, It'd be greatly appreciated. The page was "Name (band)", signed to Lifeforce Records... If restored, I'd like to throw some other info on there and make some edits, if possible. I am a member of the band and can confirm that if you'd like. Thanks and hope to hear from you soon!

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apalehorse2123 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's restored, so you can (and should...) add sources to independent coverage of the band, else it may well be deleted again in the future. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ill definitely add as many source links as possible. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apalehorse2123 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Speedy Deletion of Recon (band):
Hi, I'm Jordan. I'm sure you're not a wretched, vengeful, malicious elitist e-nerd--I'm sure most of the admins on Wikipedia aren't. In spite of acknowledging that, I can't but feel quite angry with the way this great resource is run. Hence, I have an honest question that I'd truly appreciate being answered if you'd take the time: Why is almost every new article, edit, redirect, etc. these days being nominated for speedy deletion/revert? You agreed that my addition of "Recon (band)" was "not significant" (or something like that). It's not personal--I let that go a long time ago when I used to actually respect the administrative side of Wikipedia much more before being let down time and time again. What I want to know is whether you actually took the time to read the short article, or if you just agreed with its deletion, as an admin, to move things along? Was a good, significant, or noteworthy article in my opinion? Absolutely not--the point is that there is a far greater likelihood of something being perfected if there is something to perfect in the first place--hence Wikipedia. (I'm quite positive that we all believe that, so I hope I don't have hop on the PsychInfo database to back up that comment in my reference section, here. Haha) So, the situation is this: I, and a bunch of other people writing sub-par-articles, know full-well it's neither our best effort nor to the standards of Wikipedia, but take the time to do so simply for the sake of free knowledge and having that knowledge part of the world's largest encyclopedia. I didn't write the article thinking it was finished, good, or even completely accurate--having known beforehand that this very article would likely be the most written about the band on any website or blog, I simply hoped that someone with primary resources would see the article and completely revamp it. If you're asking why people are writing such articles, it's because there are those incapable of writing articles (for various reasons), those almost capable but unmotivated or too hesitant, those barely capable but motivated and ambitious enough to challenge themselves to do so, those completely capable and motivated, and those completely capable but unmotivated (for whatever reasons). I knew full-well before beginning the article that I fell somewhere in between the second and third possibility, but wanted to do so simply so there'd be a starting place. So, the question, refined, is this: Why delete something so harmless if it had legitimate references but lacked thoroughness? Why not just put a tag on it saying it needs more references and thoroughness like many articles have? I just don't get it and I really want to hear an actual admins perspective. I hope your'e not angered, annoyed, or confused by any of this--I honestly just want to hear it from source.

Jfeen (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'll look at this and pay particular attention to the dates, you should be able to see that I deleted a previous article on the band back in 2009, and that Seraphimblade was the administrator who deleted it a few days ago. I would suggest you discuss the deletion with him. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Tothwolf/XiRCON
Hi Jclemens,

Perhaps at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/XiRCON, could you explain why you undid a db-uq tag on the userfied deleted (Articles for deletion/XiRCON) article?
 * 15:32, 5 April 2011‎ Jclemens (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,333 bytes) (+3,324)‎ . . (Undid revision 376958885 by Tothwolf (talk) undoing u1)
 * 16:13, 3 August 2010‎ Tothwolf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9 bytes) (-3,324)‎ ..

I would guess that it was a mistake? Shall we just delete it now? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't remember why, but apparently it was per his own request: diff. A request for userification supersedes a u1, obviously. I wouldn't recommend deleting it. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Tothwolf believed he was being harassed (e.g. see here), which led to some of his odd usages of u1 at various points. I have not heard from him in a while on the matter, but he appears to have last edited less than two weeks ago, so notifying him of the discussion is almost certainly appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, thanks for letting me know about the MFD. I'm not watching my watchlist too closely right now due to my workload. I left a reply in the MFD and unfortunately the background on this is kinda ugly. This link and this may also help. SchmuckyTheCat knows I want nothing to do with him, yet that MFD seems to indicate that he plans to continue. I'm not really sure what more can be done. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * SchmuckyTheCat apparently also made this related MFD nomination for User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients with both it and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/XiRCON being made in between a large number of China/Hong Kong related deletion nominations. This actually is beginning to look a lot like this all over again. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia search number removed
Sarek issued a complaint pm WP:AN that giving the number "8000" from a Wikipedia search makes me somehow incompetent to edit the encyclopedia (which is funny as my position is basically "pro-choice"). I removed the number derived from the Wikipedia search, and trust this makes me more competent. Arbitration/Requests/Clarification Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think his complaint had nothing to do with the number 8,000, but with your contention that the article pro-life feminism had little or no connection to the subject of abortion. MastCell Talk 22:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My contention is that most of the political BLPs have far more contentious material on the topic than this article has. And I would note that Roscelese made essentially the edit I thought proper - after the BLP/N discussion.   What I do find very amusing is that I (pro-life) am accused of having shown a POV which was not as far as I can tell remotely present!  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, what did I miss while I was out enjoying a wonderful Japanese dinner? Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN for Sarek's instant umbrage and assertion that I pushing a POV when I pointed out the my policy question is valid -- that is, can just anyone (involved or not) paste a 1RR notice on any page which mentions "abortion" or is that supposed to be left to an uninvolved admin and not an involved editor. Pretty simple - but when I pointed out the huge number of articles which refer to abortion and suggested that allowing everyone to post them as being 1RR was not exactly how I thought the process is best used .  In any case, Sarek officially doubts my ability to edit anything on Wikipedia as a result. As its relation to abortion is inherent in the title/subject of the article, this statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken? is his precise wording.  As I showed no POV in the matter (fwiw I am basically "pro-choice"), I find his instant umbrage to be quite ill-timed, occurring during the ArbCom page discussion.  I removed the number, which had seemed to set him off, but that did not seem to kill the deadhorse.    And I first had sukiyaki cooked on an hibachi on our dining room table in 1956.  Along with sake in a wooden box as made for the Emperor of Japan.   I do not really consider the yakitori places as being in that league.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I doubt my Japanese food was that good. However, I suggest that you and Sarek have a nice cup of WP:TEA over the matter.  Regardless of involvement, working under 1RR is really not all that difficult in my experience.  As an arb, I've tried to do 1RR myself everywhere, and while it's a bit slower, it really helps me slow the tempo and increase the level of the dialogue in contested areas. I'd suggest you try it as well on other articles not subject to any sanction, just to see how it works for you.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard
I would appreciate your input over at the RS/N which at present requires balanced input. In a highly conflicted debate outside of Wikipedia, reflected as a highly conflicted debate on Wikipedia, I have found comments you have added previously to be balanced. Can you assist? Minphie (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Aboleth
Hello,

Since you participated in the deletion discussion for Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons), Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), or Ankheg in 2011, I wanted to alert you that Aboleth is now up for AFD. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nahar (alphabet)
You say 'clearly sourced'. That's one of my problems - is it sourced? The Book of Dagan is an ebook, The Lovecraft Lexicon despite being a source doesn't seem to mention this by name, one of the sources seems to be a character in Lovecraft's work.Терций Сибеллиус. Тайны червя is in fact De Vermis Mysteriis which is in a story by Robert Bloch and then used again by him, Price and Lovecraft so is clearly not a source in its own right. Bloch, Price and The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana just might be useful sources if we could verify them, which we can't easily without page numbers. Nazar doesn't seem to have realised that Тайны червя is in fact De Vermis Mysteriis. So the problem is, is it really sourced and do those sources establish notability enough to mention it anywhere? Can you help here? Because whatever happens if it isn't deleted the sources need to be cleaned up. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doug, notability is about articles, never never never content. WP:NNC makes this absolutely clear, and I am surprised you did not already know this. Primary source mentions are enough to meet WP:V (it exists), but not enough to support real-world impact, detailed commentary, or any of the other aspects of notability that would support a standalone article on a topic. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that was what I was asking. Of course notability is about articles and not content. What sources do you see, if any, that support notability? Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean verifiability, right? If it's verifiable but non-notable, it's poster-child content for merging.  If it's not got enough to establish that it really exists, then yeah, deletion might be an appropriate outcome.  It sounds like that's what you're really suggesting, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. You said that it had sources, but I'm not convinced it does, and its creator seems to have removed some that he/she wasn't sure about. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it has primary sources--none of which appear reliable or independent to me--which would be a good basis for it being merged somewhere rather than being retained as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, that clarifies matters. We agree then. Dougweller (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at my last few contributions?
I was reading through today's AfD log and saw that a few relists weren't completed properly. I believe I've repaired them, but didn't have so much experience editing the log manually. Would you double check me? BusterD (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally I would, but I'm leaving presently and won't be back on-wiki for several hours. Ask another frequent relister? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks anyway! Enjoy the day! BusterD (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scottywong was available. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it all worked out for you! He's a great resource for technical processes behind deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about injunctions
Hi Jclemens. The R&I review has a section for proposed temporary injunctions, but I don't know how to go about requesting one. Could you please tell me how to request it?

I'd like to request an injunction that Mathsci be prohibited from interacting with me for the rest of the time that the review is open. Of course I am hoping the results of the review will address the issue in a long-term sense, but in the meantime his pursuit of me has only increased since I first made the request for amendment. I emailed you about a previous example of his publicly bringing up a piece of off-wiki information that isn't findable without extensive research. As of now, you can see here his battleground attitude is extending to my involvement in the paleontology articles I edit. I am having increasing difficulties remaining civil in the face of this baiting and I would really like some sort of remedy to keep this from continuing at least as long as the review is open. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never worked with a temporary injunction before. I suggest you just ask in the appropriate spot on the case page, or on the talk page, such that a clerk can help you through the details.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, though it's now been resolved by Roger Davies. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost question
Hi Jclemens! I write for the Signpost and I'm working on a series analyzing the work of the Arbitration Committee (a recent story here). Would you be free to answer some questions regarding your work on the Committee, and specifically the ins and outs of the committee mailing list? I see you're a member of the incoming mail team for the committee, and I'm interested in some organizational details. For example:
 * Are PD assignments made on the list
 * How much discussion about a decision, pre-PD draft, is there

If you would be willing, please ping my talk page. I'd be glad to post questions here or via email, whichever you prefer. Best regards! Lord Roem (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions
Here are my questions. Feel free to answer them here or via email, whichever you prefer.


 * 1. On the Committee itself, once a case is accepted, how are the drafters for the PD chosen? Is this done via the mailing list, and if so, do members 'vie' or request to draft a specific case? Is selection basically random?
 * Selection is basically a volunteer round-robin. Arbs volunteer for specific cases as they have time and interest.  We have appointed three drafters in a couple of cases this year, which is 20% of the serving committee on one case.  Drafters often say something like "I haven't drafted anything this year so far" or "Well, I have time to do this one, but I've already done two this year...". Junior arbs often take second seat on a case first, but not always.  Most of us seem to make suboptimal choices on our first case or two, but somehow the committee and community survives our learning curve.


 * 2. During a case, how much internal discussion usually occurs via the mailing list? In your experience, do drafters tend to find consensus early on or does conversation fire up after the posting of a proposed decision?
 * It really depends on the nature of the case. When there's substantial disagreement, you will see that in the proposed decisions themselves, such as in Betacommand 3, and the email discussion reflected deliberations of a divided committee.  Others will have extensive off-wiki discussion because of the nature of the evidence, like TimidGuy Ban Appeal.  ArbCom uses auxiliary mailing lists, which are re-purposed as needed to handle matters in which specific arbitrators are recused.


 * 3. When you first joined the Committee, what was your biggest shock or insight you gained through participating in cases? What surprised you?
 * I was shocked how many non-public matters the committee handles: allegations of WP:CHILD violations, real-life harassment and threats against Wikipedia editors, editors having mental breakdowns... Which is ironic, because I'm quite a bit more professionally qualified to handle those sorts of things than much of the committee's public workload.


 * 4. Generally, how much ArbCom mail do you receive? I've heard its crazy, just how so?
 * A quick (and possibly inaccurate) count of my mailboxes shows 410 for the month of April to date, so about 45 a day. April has been a light month overall, with only one situation so far that resulted in an exceptional spike in email, so I'm guessing 50 a day would be a ceiling of normal email traffic.  We're working on another mailing list such that initial appeals from banned users can go to the ban appeals subcommittee (BASC) and other arbitrators who choose to view that mailing list, and not to the main mailing list.  I will be happy when that gets up and running, because BASC traffic is probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the total mail content.


 * 5. AGK and other new arbitrators replied in their recent interviews that conversation is more frank and open on the mailing list. Do you find discussions to be calm? Are there occasional heated arguments?
 * There are disagreements, sure, but the one thing about the list is that we are all here for Wikipedia more than we are for ourselves. Several of us hold exceptionally divergent viewpoints on things, but when it's "just us" on the mailing list, the discussion is handled in a much more ideal manner than a discussion, for example, on AN or ANI.  That is, we talk about the real issues, rather than personalities, for the most part, and there's no one egging on drama for drama's sake.  I only recall one threat to resign in the 16 months I've been on the list, which was not acted upon--and wasn't related to the committee's own internal workings anyways.  Overall, ArbCom is a very high quality group of people, both in terms of their real-life skills, experience, logic, and dedication.  The community has done an excellent job of selecting principled and articulate candidates who have justice, fairness, and Wikipedia's long-term health in mind.

I appreciate your willingness to help with the story, which is currently slated for May 7th. Best wishes, Lord Roem (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded 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). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually the "special report 1" :-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical connection no longer exists
In light of your recent votes, could you please take a look at this? Since it's my site ban on the table here I want to make sure that this is acknowledged. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So switching up connectivity somehow negates all the past evidence? I'm sorry, but if you seriously think that changing things around would materially affect the review outcome, you have badly misunderstood the nature of the problem. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely relevant! This isn't "switching up connectivity", this is a real-life change in my living situation that I've been trying to get Arbcom's attention about ever since the findings of fact were posted, in the PD talk and on the mailing list. I was worried that after how long I've spent trying to bring attention to this problem it would be too late to address it, but AGK reassured me it wasn't too late.


 * Based on this comment, the data linking my account to his is from 2010. I'm loathe to mention anything about my private life in public anymore, but the fact is: Occam and I no longer live together. I had thought he was still sometimes going online from the network at my house, but apparently he doesn't anymore and hasn't in months. According to AGK, Occam's connection isn't even in the same town as mine. I was formally topic banned under WP:SHARE, and the reason a site ban is being considered is because I may have violated WP:SHARE with my request for amendment. But WP:SHARE does not apply, and this needs to be considered. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It needs to be considered? By whom? You do understand that checkuser evidence is not the only basis on which the association has been made, right? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that if arbitrators are going to pass a finding of fact that I'm violating WP:SHARE, which is what FoF 3.8 says, they have an obligation to first be sure I actually am violating it. If you think there's enough reason to site-ban me even if I'm not violating it, then that's a different issue. But this shouldn't be included as a reason if it's not true. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ferhago, that you are no longer violating SHARE is not as indisputable as you claim. AGK  [•] 15:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:EEMIV
Special:Contributions/EEMIV. 500 edits
 * Redirects without discussion
 * Actions against consensus of discussion
 * Subversion of AfD process
 * Use of redirects to bypass the AfD process
 * EEMIV seems to think that mentioning proposals at the Star Trek project page gives rights superseding the AfD process. So I guess that makes the others at that project page complicit in this as well. I have seen this sort of behaviour before, but it has always been isolated incidents. This user does it habitually, and seems to have the backing of other editors as well. I think a message needs to be sent, that nowhere in WP:REDIRECT does it say that redirects are what you do with articles you do not like and cannot be bothered to nominate for deletion, or that you think might have a chance of being improved later (as many and various guidelines and essays indicate that stubs are for that purpose).

After the decision to Keep by closer, User:Ron Ritzman, at:
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambush (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)

Wholesale redirect of a series of Star Wars The Clone Wars episodes to a list of episodes, against consensus, and without further discussion
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hostage_Crisis&diff=362738005&oldid=362702487

Keeps no record of archives on talk page. He has his TALK PAGE locked so only Users can edit it.
 * Redirects

Plo Koon, redirected to List of Star Wars characters
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plo_Koon&diff=488578144&oldid=488576242
 * Talk page. Proves he is not doing redirects for the purposes of WP:REDIRECT #13 : "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlo_Koon&diff=488578097&oldid=477058778

Redirect (two of many, of Star Trek spaceship articles
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starfleet_ship_registry_and_classes_in_Star_Trek&diff=484220024&oldid=482393620
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Excelsior&diff=482409508&oldid=478713241


 * Stubifying, outside of the Star Trek genre

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels. Made Stub of article.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropes_in_Agatha_Christie%27s_novels&diff=483753776&oldid=478348348

I stopped after less than a week's worth of Edit History. There is no telling how much material this user has removed from mainspace
 * Copies of this message sent to editors who participated in the Ambush AfD: User:Ron Ritzman, User:DGG, User:Jclemens, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Torritorri, and added to the Talk page of the Star Trek Project page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek
 * Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Massoud and Qadir 2.PNG
Your speedy closure of File:Massoud and Qadir 2.PNG on Files for deletion/2012 May 3 was out of process. There is no rule against immediate re-nominations, and there are many precedents for such renominations having been accepted (ex.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The standing policy is that any XfD can be revisited at any time, if new arguments are on the table. This was clearly the case here, as explained in my nomination, and in the meantime there had been several fresh good-faith outside !votes.

Do I really have to take this closure of yours to DRV again, only so that we can then finally have yet another FFD? I'm frankly annoyed that the cleanup of an NFCC failure as obvious as this one gets delayed through these kinds of bureaucratic shenanigans. The simple fact is that this image is not the object of commentary in the article; neither the image itself nor even the event it shows is mentioned with as much as a single word. Everybody can see that if they only look at the article. No good-faith wikipedian with half an ounce of experience with NFC could have the slightest doubt that it fails the policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that would be an entirely unwise thing to do. One of the most important parts of working in Wikipedia is learning to both understand and accept when consensus is against you.  By continuing to harp on NFCC #8, you're entering WP:IDHT territory.  Your renomination had two parts: one which you had already fixed, and one which was roundly overturned in DRV.  If you want to talk "out of process" going from a closing admin to a re-nominator calls into question whether your original close was made with appropriate detachment.  No, scratch that, it again questions that detachment--since the DRV questioned it and found your rationale wanting.
 * Please, let it be. Admit that your interpretation of NFCC #8 differs from the community's, and either accept that the community has chosen to bear more risk of possible infringement than you are personally comfortable with, or perhaps embark on a campaign to persuade and educate them about why your vision is superior. But don't enter WP:DEADHORSE territory over the same image where your views have been rebuked. DRV has a habit of responding louder the second time it's asked the same question. I could be entirely misreading the situation, and find myself overturned... but I don't think so.
 * It's your right to start a second DRV if you want to, but I strongly advise against it, because I think it will prompt people to further question your fitness to act impartially in NFCC issues. Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Answer me this: do you know of any legitimate understanding of the NFCC under which a historical photograph could be legitimate in an article in which the event it shows is not even mentioned? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides this incidence which deserves mentioning (which I still have to address) and the fact that the articles did mention the unity of ethnicities, I further specified the information about the event itself in the articles containing the image. See i. e.:. Further, it is not only the event itself but the immediate context which makes the image as important as told multiple times to Fut.Perf. and as agreed on twice by community consensus. JCAla (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well said, Jclemens. Future Perfect errs in gaging community consensus by not hearing what the community has said.  Thus, we get IVotes that straight face claim "easily meets NFCC#8 [for such and such reason]," despite the fact that FP may judge, otherwise.  NFCC#8 is not a formula, such that a formulaic response is wise or required, as FP erroneously suggests.  Rather, it calls for editorial judgement, by looking at an image in the context of the text the image is paired with and deciding whether the image and the text together significantly increases understanding, and deletion would be harmful to that. NFCC#8 is satisfied in multiple different ways by multiple different combinations of texts and images, not one or two ways only. Images don't signify one idea, they convey multiple ideas, and when paired with words can provide significant understanding of those ideas. Editors may, of course, reasonably disagree on the degree of significance present, therefore the editors' consensus on that is what rules the matter, in any particular case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure when criticizing Arbcom became justification for a indef ban by arbcom?
Per "Tell that to the ArbCom." provided as one of the difs here I though there was some sort of policy against using admin tools for retaliation for comments made against you. -- Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 12:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on.. the more sensible conclusion to draw is that Will failed to coordinate actions on off-wiki forums. Clearly he was the cause of conflict on Wikipedia, because when one intellectually honest person takes a stand for rational debate against many (well.. if is aware that internet crazies must have realized proxies exist, 'many') devious idiots the majority must be right. Nevard (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the punishment doesn't fit the crime. NOT AT ALL. It's like stealing a candy-bar from a grocery store, and being sentenced in jail for 25 years with no chance of parole. Will has a long, very long, history of being helpful, courteous, and level headed. He made a mistake, we're all human, we all do. Arb-Com should have done a temporary suspension of adminship, and maybe a temporary ban. They stepped way outside the lines with the punishment handed down to a good wikipedian. Ban me if you will, but I disagree with the Arb Com decision. NECRAT Speak to me 06:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to argue against your point of view. Well...unless you're sitting at ARBCOM I guess... -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 07:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, what mistake was that? Stealing a candy bar is, after all, actually morally wrong. Nevard (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, but taking everything into consideration, in reality (not theoretically), would it make a difference to you if it was the Pope or a serial killer that did it (AFAIK, Will is neither), when deciding upon sentencing? My understanding of the mistake was, after boiling away all the cruft around the issue, that Will was a little too enthusiastic about proving another editor's COI, and found some evidence off-wiki that proved he was right. ArbCom felt that it was worth ignoring his previous 8 years of work, adminship, and over 110,000 edits, to strip him of his adminship, and indefinitely ban him because they felt this "outed" the other editor, who had previously stated where he worked, on wiki. I'm not speaking for anyone but me, any factual errors in what I just said are completely mine. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please enough with the elevating of Will to sainthood. They are a mere human with a history of being an unusually fighting-oriented editor. It was done cleverly enough (via misusing policies rather than explicitly violating them) to avoid action except it put to them a lot closer to an actionable offense (which apparently occurred, we were not privy to all of the info) and possibly set the groundwork for such occurring. I was often baffled by 100K + edit editors sort of going off course. I concluded that it is due to 3-4 factors, one of them is developing a possee that insulates them from guidance/accountability. That may seem helpful at the moment, but in the big picture this does their friend harm. A really successful reentry (which I hope for ) will include Will changing a bit. Their posse (or Arbcom haters) conferring sainthood during their absence is not really going to help them or that process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Elevated Arbcom to infallibility does not help either. I do not think anyone here is claiming that Will did not make mistakes. I was party to much of the evidence that went around. However the question is does an indef ban of a long term editors with much evidence of contributing positively a good outcome for Wikipedia? Especially when some of the strongest evidence quoted as justification is him writing: "Tell that to the ArbCom."  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. I do think that Arbcom sometimes engages in group think, including snowballing to overly harsh penalties. "Group think" can come from Wikipedia upbringing which emphasizes "going along"  and de-emphasizes independent analysis and thinking.   Nevertheless some action that results in a bit of a course correction with Will is a good thing, which implies and includes Will coming back. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hardly think you can construe my comments as raising Will to sainthood. But if that's your way of saying I think the punishment grossly outweighs the crime, then yes, I can accept that. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was more sort of vaguely talking about this whole page. Wasn't targeted at you, sorry if I seemed otherwise. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately do not think he will return. I see this more as a learning experience for the movement going forwards. This in not the sort of treatment one would typically give to a person who has spent much of seven years working to write an encyclopedia for free and in good faith.
 * If one was to throw out this sort of volunteer I would expect to see much better evidence presented than quoting his comment "Tell that to the ArbCom." on Jimmy Wales talk page, or his comments on the state of the "conflict of interest" policy on Sue Gardner's talk page . It is ironic that he predicted his own "banning" a couple of months before it happened.
 * We spend millions to try to attract new editors, mostly with limited success. I have spend many thousands of my own on similar efforts with equally poor results . We need to reconsider our position of biting long standing editors. I have made comments on Wikipedia which I now regret and no less significant than the evidence provided in this case. The amount of leeway a person is given must be partly tied to the positive contributions they make. We must only consider taking draconian actions against a user if the harm they generate outweighs their benefit. That means all of their edits, in this case 130,000, need to be considered. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will also did a lot of damage. But people who do so cleverly never end up subject to measures to correct/ modify that.  So the system does need work in both respects.  The same person having a record of no such measures and then getting the most severe possible penalty is evidence that some refinement of the system in both respects is in order.   Ditto for the fact that I've seen several 100k+ edit prominent editors jump the tracks with no history of any measure to attempt to guide them is also evidence of this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will Beback was not banned for his content contributions, but for harassment of other editors, refusal to accept the outcome of previous dispute resolution by escalating his attacks on another editor, and presenting partial truths without exculpatory evidence of which he either had direct knowledge or was willfully ignorant in order to get Jimbo to ban one of his ideological opponents. His editing was, for the most part, fine.  He had threatened to out other editors via email on a number of prior occasions, shared his personal off-wiki OUTING research with non-functionaries, including to you, DocJames, in a message dated Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM (in my timezone, at any rate) from Will Beback (email known to you and me) to Arbcom-l and multiple addresses believed to belong to TimidGuy; copied to Jimbo, yourself, and another administrator who is identified to the foundation; with a subject line of "TM conflict of interest complaint".
 * I would like to hear you comment on that email--without further revealing its contents. Since all parties to the case stipulated that it was that information upon which Jimbo initially banned TimidGuy, and upon which the committee started reviewing both the facts of TimidGuy's editing and Will Beback's conduct, I don't think there's much more needing to be said about its content. On the other hand, I do have some questions about that email.
 * Why did Will Beback copy you? You're not a functionary, not a checkuser.  You've edited in the TM area as an editor, which would make you a poor choice for an uninvolved administrator, would it not?
 * What, if anything, did you do with the information that Will sent to you?
 * Why have you chosen to omit your direct familiarity with the OUTING and harassment that prompted Will's banning, even though you participated in the case at least to the extent of reviewing problematic edits in the TM area since 2010's TM case?
 * I think those answers should be much more interesting to the community than one diff in part of one of five findings of fact that led to a serial off-wiki harasser being let go from the project. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, this is not the place for this, your accusations of further issues seems only one step away from grave dancing here, and in poor taste. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 07:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you don't like it Maelefique, but there's no grave-dancing going on here: I think Will's banning is a tragedy, but one mostly brought on by his own unwillingness to say "I was wrong in my understanding of policy, and, even if I had been right, I was wrong to try and use off-wiki investigations against other editors the way I did". Doc James knows--or should have known; he got the email--exactly why Will was banned, and is apparently attempting to publicly recast the reasoning behind the ban.  He's done this a couple of times, in other venues, such as RFC/COI, and the real question is... why?  Was Will repeatedly corresponding with Doc James for some as-yet-undisclosed purpose, and, if so, what conclusion should we draw about Doc James' continued advocacy on Will's behalf? Or is Doc James just terrible about remembering emails and poor about following up when Arbcom members (like, oh, me) have responded to his questions before?
 * But in deference to your objections... where do you think Doc James' own involvement should be discussed, if not in the venues in which he brings up the topic? Did you note that Doc James posted this here, two months ago? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why have I brought this issue up a couple of times (have also brought it up on the Wikimedia listserv by the way)? It is because I consider this to be a very concerning matter. As stated we have spent millions trying to attract editors and I have spoke at a number of Universities attempting to do so. The two who drafted this case where Jclemens and Roger Davies. Jclemens has made clear his position on paid editing here which is in some ways in conflict with that of Will Beback. He than quote Will's position on paid editing to justify this ban. I consider this bad form. Roger Davies the co drafter has a similar position when he states "Finally, how does any of this equate to a greater degree of paid advocacy than, say, Doc James, who is paid a fat salary to cleave to orthodox medicine?" by email. Part of the reason for my comments here which you quote.
 * You state "why have you chosen to omit your direct familiarity..." Please read my comments a little earlier where I state "I was party to much of the evidence that went around." Will sent me this information as I was directly involved with this case. Sending concerns regarding someone to the appropriate parties in an off wiki email is not called "outing". With respect to Will I have heard nothing from him for 5 month. I assume that he is not coming back. With respect to Jclemens defense of his position on these matters it simply does not settle the issue at hand. I am simply hoping arbcom does not do this sort of thing again. Anyway something for arbcom to consider and as Cliff recommends I shall get back to doing what we are here for, writing an encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still not entirely sure why you received that evidence in the first place, but your acknowledgement that you did is a good step towards openness, and really, I suppose Will Beback is the only one answerable for the improper distribution of his investigation findings. If you think it's proper for one non-functionary involved administrator to unearth the real-life identity of another contributor and then copy it to another non-functionary involved administrator when seeking sanctions on that contributor on the basis of that real life identity... I think you need to reconsider the privacy implications of such an act. Even if such information is not considered OUTING, the act violates at least two parts of WP:CANVASS, by being partisan, biased, and arguably secret.  At any rate, it's interesting that Will never asked for you to be added to the case as an involved party, as he did repeatedly for another editor--a request which we declined in order to limit the spread of the allegations.
 * Given Will's history of such off-wiki contact, I hope you'll excuse my asking the question.
 * As far as COI goes, I really hadn't thought of it much until this case--we're all agreed that PR professionals astroturfing Wikipedia is a bannable offense, but when Will came, asking that a part time college professor at a religious institution be banned for the sin of being paid primarily in room and board AND writing on the topics covered by that religious institution, it became clear that that level of Javertesque pursuit of COI was poisonous to Wikipedia. My only proposal at the COI RfC was designed as a prelude to preventing such inquests, but appears to be both misunderstood and under-supported: if the COI discussion goes as the virulently anti-commercialists (or whatever you propose to call them) want it to, you will be required to disclose your financial conflict of interest in every article you touch.  Some of their proposals would prevent you, a paid physician, from editing any articles on medicine directly, relegating you to the back of the bus--the talk page--just because you are employed in the field.  Mind you, that's almost certainly not going to happen, but as an editor of integrity, I am not going to ignore the negative implications of the cases I've helped decide.  It would be improper for me to have formed an opinion on the specifics ahead of the case, which I had not.  I entered the case expecting to sustain the ban and instead found Will's logic and doggedness in interpreting COI policy was unsustainable, and his positions remain unchanged to this day as far as has been communicated to me.
 * I agree that the entire evolution was tragic. As far as I can see, Will became so intent on debunking what he believed to be untrue and harmful, that he violated another editor's privacy and misconstrued the policy impact of what he found to achieve that end. What's worse, we turned up a few times when he'd done similar but less severe things during the case, including one that was done during the course of the case!
 * I really don't begrudge people who can only see Will's good edits hating Arbcom over this; they don't have access to the evidence that you and I do. I was surprised when the ban passed, to be honest, given the difficulty that Arbcom had concluding to ban Betacommand, an editor who also had plenty of good work, but a much, much longer history of troublesome edits and Arbcom and community intervention.  Still, the case wasn't primarily about raising the issue to Jimbo, but about doing so in a manner that misconstrued his investigation findings in a way that appeared a calculated retelling of the truth, designed to achieve victory at the expense of both policy and privacy. Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm totally uninvolved here, and really have no idea how I came across this dispute or whatever the proper characterization of it is, and I have no doubt whatsoever that keeping my mouth shut is the smart thing to do, HOWEVER ... if anyone thinks Doc James is "up to anything stinky", I very respectfully suggest you might want to seriously consider having an MRI done of your head, because SOMETHING is amiss. End of argument. Good luck with all this stuff. And James - GET BACK TO EDITING.
 * With best regards:
 * Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, this is not a policy page, it's not a page for discussion of how you think policy should be handled, and it's not a page to spout your opinions of previous events when those involved are not here to refute your claims, this is the wrong place for you to have this conversation. Have you not had enough of a soapbox over at the COI RFC? We all get your position on COI, few agree with it as far as I can tell from reading that page. Again, please take your accusations and beliefs elsewhere. I don't know where that "appropriate place" would be, but I'm quite sure it's not here. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 16:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * JClemens appears to have thought your posts above and others warranted a reasoned reply, not an "I can oan post allegations here and no one can respond" logic. Or as the saying goes - "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This section above was lifted bodily from a proper usertalk page where JClemens responded to posts by others, and the person so doing neglected to make sure that no one reading it here would possibly think the posts were made to this page - as proper etiquette requires. Cheers. Readers: The posts above were not made to this page, even if the time stamps confuse you.   Collect (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note2: Whoops, absolutely right, this conversation originally took place on user:Will_Beback's talk page, where a discussion was taking place about him, on his own page, without him having the opportunity to respond to JClemen's assertions. That didn't seem fair, so as per Collect's idea, that what's good for one is good for the other, I moved it here to where the conversation will definitely not be seen as vandalism or grave dancing on a banned editor's page. I should have noted that originally. My bad. Apologies to any editors that got confused. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 20:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why you, as a third party editor--actually, a fourth party, since you're not Will, Doc James, OR me--thought it was a good idea to do this I don't truly understand. Grave dancing means something very different to you than it does to me, I gather: analyzing and explaining why someone was banned is not the same as celebrating it.  Nor is responding to questions or allegations in the venue in which they were raised ever inappropriate--unless those questions or allegations were wrongly placed themselves.  Still, I'm not going to contest this move: those who can see Doc James' questions can see my response and counter-questions, and make up their mind which action is most concerning. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc James criticizes the Timid Guy decision, maligns ArbCom and suggests the community rise up and replace the newly elected group. Jclemens, as a member of ArbCom, comments and is responded to by Doc James. The thread is then moved to Jclemens talk page (for some odd reason) and now we want to limit Jclemens' comments on his own talk page? How about if we move the thread to Doc James talk page? Would that make the conversation locale more appropriate? This is after all Doc James' thread. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 22:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, has anyone apologized to TimidGuy on behalf of Wikipedia for the way he was treated by Wikipedia's administration? Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than being notified of the decision which reversed the ban, I'm not aware of any personal apology being extended. Mind you, TimidGuy's editing wasn't without reproach... but it was deemed by the committee to be substantially improved since his past sanctions and the 2010 case that there were no specific sanctions against him in the case. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimbo Wales, Will Beback, and Doc James are Wikipedia administrators. Therefore, they, unlike TimidGuy, have an expectation of stricter compliance with WP's policies.  They also, because they are administrators, represent Wikipedia itself in a way that editors without special privileges don't.  If administrators are treating editors in the way that those three were treating TimidGuy, it's like Wikipedia itself, as an institution, was abusing TimidGuy's trust.  Therefore, ArbCom, IMO, as the highest level of oversight and representative of Wikipedia's administrator corps, owes TimidGuy an apology for the way Wikipedia's administration treated him.  Treatment that was so heinous that it resulted in a 100,000 edit admin being desysopped and banned. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're counting, that's one in favour, one opposed. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 02:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have the authority to speak in Arbcom's voice on the matter, but if you believe that would be an appropriate addendum to the case, here is the place to request it. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * JClemens, no, the part where you attached your opinions on Will's motives, that's where you wandered around the grave dancing issue. I thought it was a good idea based on Collect's suggestion, seemed good to him, seemed good to me. FTR, *you* also asked me where I thought the right place would be. Seems to me, if you're going to talk about an editor, it should at least be on a page that you have a right to say anything you want on. I don't think that's Will's page. Still. Keithbob, who said anything about limiting JClemens comments? You wanna move it there, go ahead, I'm sure your reason is as good as mine. I don't have a problem with it. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 01:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh. I thought I was doing a good thing by attributing noble, if misguided, motives to what I perceived the problem with Will Beback's conduct to be.  If I've given offense by suggesting a possible motivation that seems likely to me, based on my conversation with all parties and review of all the evidence in the case, my apologies.
 * On the other hand, asking where a discussion should be conducted generally means a reference to where it can be followed up, rather than a target destination to whence it can be moved wholesale. I'm not sure that last bit was anyone else's idea of what you meant, either. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My apoligies to all, for my confusion concerning which comments were moved here from WBB talk and which were not. To correct this I have a) stricken the sentences above asking why are we restricting JC's comments on his own talk page (we are not). b) moved my post from yesterday, out of the 'moved from WBB talk to here' section to this section ( see below). -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 13:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Doc James is found campaigning, on behalf of Will Beback, and against ArbCom and their decision when: Maybe there should there be an additional Rfarb to review the edits and behaviors of other editors (like myself and Doc James) who have participated in the topic and Doc James will have an opportunity to fully present his side of the story. A review was suggested at the end of the Timid Guy case and I would welcome the opportunity to clear the air.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * a) Doc James had ample opportunity to raise his objections while the case was in process but instead chose to walk away a full two months before the case closed, after his evidence and claims against Timid Guy turned out to be baseless and his own neutrality on the topic was questioned.
 * b) There was evidence presented in the case that indicated Doc James was of the same mind as Will Beback and utilized some of the same WP:COI violating tactics against Timid Guy (and others) using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in content disputes some of which approached the level of WP:outing violations, despite caution from ArbCom (Interesting to find out now that Doc James was one of two Admins who Will Beback CC'd when he sent the email to Jimbo that got Timid Guy banned)
 * c) Doc James seems to feel that despite a hundred pages of evidence and discussion (of which he took part in, for a time) over a period of two months by 15-20 editors and approx. 15 ArbCom members did not yield the proper action and James gives one or two diffs, out of context, to support his position. Thereby sidestepping Will Beback's repeated misuse of off-Wiki communication, WP:COI and personal information. This was the same kind of 'only I know what's right' thinking that caused Will Beback, a highly productive, and highly trained editor to repeatedly and egregiously violate and disregard polices.

Tok pison
I have been a recipient of Will Beback's personal COI investigations on eastern religion-related articles as well, and have definitely suffered from the battleground atmosphere that resulted (though "crusading" might be a better word, given the pro-Christian bias that seemed apparent.) I absolutely applaud the actions taken by Arbcom and I may take this issue further. But right now I am more interested in hau yupela lainim tok pison? Rumiton (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would be a long story. Short version? Missionary training. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tok tru? I recall an ABC interview with a Papuan elder a few years ago, about retaining and respecting local culture. At one point he said: "Missionary fella spik, yu no mus follo kustom, yu no mus killim drum." I found it so poetic I wrote it down. Hope that wasn't you, but if it was, we are all learning all the time. Speaking for myself, anyway. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. Can't say I use Tok Pisin on a regular basis, and I'm certainly neither that Papuan elder nor the fellow he was describing. Never been closer to PNG than Singapore, actually. Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Vicious persecution?
Setting aside that this santimonious idiocy is hyperbole at its worst - how is anyone being persecuted for their religious beliefs at Wikipedia, let alone "viciously" -  it is wildly inappropriate for any editor, let along an ArbCom member, to level such a vicious personal attack on another editor, particularly one who due to your own actions banning him, can't respond? The answer is "No" per half a dozen policies and guidelines, and if you don't refactor promptly, I will most definitely ask that sanctions be imposed on you for this outrageous bullshit, shiny ArbCom badge on your lapel or no. Fladrif (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fladrif, just a word of advice, if you're going to call out other editors for what you perceive to be personal attacks, you probably should try to avoid engaging in the behavior yourself. I assume that it was my involvements in the case that influenced you to follow me to that deletion discussion and vote the way and in the manner you did?  Please take it easy.  This is just a website. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it was my interest in the COI/paid editing discussion, your pointy, incorrigible and unrepentedly disruptive conduct, of which you are evidently quite proud, that influenced me to comment in the deletion discussion and vote in the way and in the manner I did. Though it may be a blow to your sense of self importance, I don't follow you around Wikipedia, and I rather doubt many others do either. Fladrif (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fladrif, I would be interested to hear which particular parts of that diff you view as personal attacks against Will. I stand by my assessment of Transcendental Meditation as a religious minority--since it is a belief system that asserts truths substantially untestable by modern science.  And I stand by my assessment that, absent his particular religious beliefs, TimidGuy would not have faced the opposition he did.  And in no case did I say--or intend to imply--that Will was solely responsible for the abuses I perceived.  So it's entirely possible that I'm missing where you see a problem, and if so, I'd like it pointed out in detail (though, indeed, a less antagonistic tone is always appreciated) so I can see if I've given offense unintentionally, or if you and I just have very different ideas of what constitutes acceptable commentary by an arbitrator once a case is concluded: I favor openness, although perhaps to the extent that you feel the rights of the sanctioned are being violated thereby? Do let me know. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that lots about TM in a general way is not verifiable in terms of science, while some is. I personally don't equate, "not testable by modern science" with religion, but understand the comparison, and that the term religion has various meanings and contexts.(olive (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Are you really so clueless as to not see accusing an editor of being motivated by and conducting a program of vicious religious persecution against other editors - apparently, in light of this latest post, in concert with other unnamed editors who you are similarly libeling by implication - as a personal attack in violation of policy? I'm guessing that you're not really that clueless, making further response pointless and futile. Fladrif (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled. Are you asserting that you are privy to the private evidence in this case, such that you feel capable of objectively evaluating my statement? At any rate, what you've said here is not an appropriate characterization of what I said.  The only negative thing I said specifically about Will was that I believe that he misled Jimbo by selective presentation of the evidence, which I had already said on the case page, and to which he had an opportunity to respond, but apparently chose not to.  If you still think that calling a situation vicious is inappropriate and a personal attack, I'm sorry, but it remains 1) directed at the situation, rather than any particular editor, and 2) an accurate representation of my opinion, given the totality of the facts of the case.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You and other ArbCom members who have commented publicly have made it transparently obvious what the private evidence in the case consisted of. You've made it clear that 99 44/100% of it was hardly private at all, so it is hardly necessary for anyone to be privy to the exchanges of e-mails off-wiki among ArbCom and the parties to extrapolate the other .56% and objectively evaluate your statement as utter nonsense and a despicable personal attack on another editor who cannot respond. If you have actual evidence of a religious persecution, post it. Otherwise, refactor your statement. The lame appeal to authority and the insinuation of impropriety speak loudly to the illegitimacy and indefensibility of your statements. Nor can you excuse this by claiming you're just commenting on the situation, not any editor. You can't claim that TimidGuy is the victim of vicious religious persecution without simultaneously accusing Will (and whomever else it is that you have in mind when you say he isn't "solely responsible for the abuses I perceived") of conducting that "vicious religious persecution". It doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry. Fladrif (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've said your peace; I've said mine. I won't be refactoring anything, because on the balance I believe that explaining my own opinions in the interest of transparency takes precedence over shielding sanctioned editors from negative general comments inherent in those opinions.  Feel free to oppose me on that basis, should I choose to run for ArbCom again. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

← Fladrif's language is over-the-top, abusive, and excessive. But he's not alone in finding your contextualization—protecting religious minorities from persecution—to be sanctimonious and misguided. No one in this case was persecuted for belonging to a religious minority. Several editors were subject to scrutiny (excessive scrutiny, in ArbCom's opinion) because their edits promoted an organization with which they were directly affiliated. If a Microsoft employee comes here and consistently edits to present Microsoft in the most favorable and promotional possible light, then s/he would come under scrutiny. That has nothing to do with protecting minorities from persecution. Framing it in those terms is offensive and suggests a lack of appropriate perspective - sort of like when you compared Newt Gingrich's PR man and his efforts to edit his boss's biography to the struggles of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil-rights movement. I understand the desire to seize the moral high ground, but these efforts are sort of having the opposite effect, at least on me. MastCell Talk 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a much more reasoned approach. I find I prefer disagreeing politely in such a manner much more than the alternative.
 * First off, in that diffs and others like it, I've primarily compared the tactics and outcome between the civil rights movement and paid editing and Wikipedia. Implying that I'm comparing the relative moral value of the two would not be accurate.  If someone wants to succeed from a position of abject powerlessness, like paid editors on Wikipedia, their best bet is to become victims, and turn the moderates against their opponents/oppressors.  That is, if I were trying to get paid editing accepted on Wikipedia, not only would I have reasoned defenses of the benefits, I would also place agents provocateur in the anti-paid-editing camp, to be shrill bullies, just one hair shy of obvious caricatures.
 * Second, I disagree with your characterization of organizational affiliation using Microsoft as an example. Microsoft has to pay people to work for them. Religious organizations, universities included, struggle to pay anyone to work for them.  Working for a religious organization, especially a new religious movement, is more about devotion to the cause than pay.  Again, TimidGuy's own on-Wiki admission was that he was an Associate Professor, paid in room, insurance, and a small stipend.  At a normal university, that level of reimbursement would be a graduate student. So when someone says "See? He's trying to promote his university--his day job!" there are two problems with that argument: 1) His day job sucks, and won't really ever suck less regardless of his promoting... 2) a belief system, rather than his specific university, is being promoted.  Thus, Will and others argued that a second-order effect (promote the movement -> promote the university) was both sufficiently paid and sufficiently self-interested that it constituted an actionable COI, vs. the run-of-the-mill POV warriors we see and deal with all the time on Wikipedia.  Microsoft is an entirely different organization, where its employees DO directly profit (via stock options, profit sharing, etc.) from astroturfing.  Mind you, since I've worked for both non-profit religious organizations and in very well-paid tech sector jobs, and done outreach for each, I have a direct view of the spectrum between the two extremes, and those experiences inform my view of "paid advocacy".  I probably have the best understanding of the differences between the two on the current committee. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the distinction you're making, nor the relevance of the details of TimidGuy's compensation package. People agree to work for an organization for a variety of reasons besides money, and it doesn't make sense to focus solely on financial compensation to judge the strength of a conflict of interest. (Besides which, an entry-level PR staffer for Microsoft probably doesn't earn much more than TimidGuy did in room/board/stipend). I could make (a lot) more money by going to work for a different institution, but I work where I do largely because of non-financial considerations. That doesn't lessen the problem if I were to go out and start editing Wikipedia to promote my employer. To be clear, my objection to the TimidGuy case wasn't paid editing per se, but the obvious conflict of interest, but I recognize that others (e.g. Will) focused on the paid-editing aspect. I also don't see the distinction between promoting a "belief system" and a specific organization. In the case of TM, these appear to be one and the same: Transcendental Meditation appears to be, in essence, a proprietary product of a single corporate conglomerate. The organization commands an extraordinary reserve of cash and appears, by all indications, to be massively lucrative and profitable. It profits directly from the sale of TM materials and enrollment in TM courses, which are in turn presumably bolstered by claims of the health benefits of TM. So again, it's not hard for me to see a real conflict of interest here which isn't that different from a Microsoft employee promoting their products on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 21:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that verifiability is not truth, that articles under constant siege from multiple POVs in debated situations are  not necessarily accurate at any point in time, and that sources on such an article may be one sided.  It sounds like you've read one or more of  the TM articles. Just an aside.(olive (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC))
 * The basis upon which Jimbo banned TimidGuy initially was paid advocacy. If you're telling me that a guy who gets a stipend from a faith-based organization but has to work a second job to make ends meet, edits for an hour or two in the early morning only local time, and has previously disclosed this COI is somehow the same as a Microsoftie doing it on the sly, then you fundamentally agree with my conclusions with respect to paid editing: since it's impossible to determine with any degree of confidence when editors are paid to do anything, we should just examine the edits, individually or as a whole, without trying to ascertain motivation.  But, since practice was to treat paid editing separately, we looked at that... and found no evidence that TimidGuy was paid to edit, let alone paid to advocate TM.  The picture painted was of a guy who could have been making more money, had he not chosen to work in a TM-sponsored university.  He wasn't getting paid to edit Wikipedia, he was (as far as I can read minds...) living a life of devotion to his cause, had previously been sanctioned for his advocacy, and had cleaned up his act since.  His POVishness was not significantly different than anyone else's, he'd declared a COI, and there was no particular policy basis, post 2010 TM case, for him to be banned. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding convention (ref: RF Case comment you made)
In reference to this diff; I took at look at the top ten bots (by # of edits) and found that 40% of them have been unblocked by their owners. A cursory review of bots further down the list found this practice to be, while not the majority of the cases, a very significant number of the cases. I could do a more thorough examination of the bots, say top 50 if you like. More commentary from various editors here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up here to make sure I got it. I'll see about wordsmithing that. Out of curiosity, was BCD one of those 10? How recently has someone other than Rich done so? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BCD was not one of those ten (#11), and the years on the three other than RF are 2008, 2010, 2011. I looked at the top 50. 13 bots other than RF and operated bots have been unblocked by their owners after they were blocked by someone else. Those 13 represent 13 different owners unblocking their bots. It should be noted that 9 of those bots have never been blocked, thus never candidates to be unblocked by their owners. Years cover every year from 2005 to 2011, inclusive. An owner unblocking a bot after the problem has been fixed appears pretty common, and widespread accepted practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Thanks for doing that research for us. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say I always thought that it was OK for the owner to unblock his own bot that had been stopped for malfunctioning, provided there had been some discussion of the problem, a post-mortem had been conducted, code tweaked etc. I assumed the 'misuse of tools' issues were elsewhere. Unblocking the bot to continue breaching his edit restrictions was probably not off the brightest though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From my past experience with large numbers of articles within WP:COMP, an admin unblocking their own bot after correcting malfunctions did seem to be common practice. It was also common to see the bot go back and correct whatever it had messed up. Perhaps it really has more to do with the circumstances under which the bot was blocked? If the block reason was just a simple malfunction caused by a typo, etc, unblocking one's own bot was seen as non-controversial and not really any different from resetting a stop-process flag which many bots also implement. On the other hand, if the use of the bot was against policy, an unauthorized bot running on a non-bot account, or otherwise caused a lot of harm, unblocking one's own bot might be much more likely to be seen as misusing the tools. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski Arbcom request
I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom after most of the decline decisions due to the fact that I didn't have to reply to the statements of the other editors before then. Arbitration/Requests/Case Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the problem is that the matter really isn't ripe for arbitration yet. There are other dispute resolution venues, and the people who are opposing your addition aren't objectively unreasonable.  Yes, it would be nice to have more details about the crime, conviction, and exile... but the fact remains that if we let that section overshadow the rest of Polanski's article, that would be a NPOV issue.  So, you and the others working in the article need to go back and find a way to make sure the right amount of information finds its way into the article. Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment
I've made a request to amend one of the findings of fact. I do not gain anything from it (or the speed with which it is handled), but other individuals or groups might. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have all the case, clarification, and amendment pages watchlisted, though, so a notification that you've filed something is unnecessary, although I see how you might have gotten that from my WT:AC/N post.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the notification was not merely that I've filed something (or at least, that was not the sole intention). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols". Thank you. --Neuroticguru (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but a) I don't consider myself all that involved, and b) it looks more like a user conduct issue than an actual dispute. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please...
In August of 2010 you deleted the article Dirty thirty (Vietnam) as an expired prod. Unfortunately, whoever placed that prod didn't bother to leave a heads-up on my talk page, and I only became aware of the deletion now.

I request userification to User:Geo Swan/userified 2012-05/Dirty thirty (Vietnam) please. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW a few seconds with google finds lots of replacement references -- nominator might benefit from re-reading WP:BEFORE,.
 * I don't userify prods--I put them back in mainspace. You're free to move it to your userspace for work, but as of now it's back in mainspace.  Feel free to commence upgrade work on it.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Input
Look at One Sonic Society, and tell me what you think of it now?HotHat (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks substantially better than any of the previous versions, and sufficiently different that G4 deletion would be inappropriate. Keep up the good work! Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Apparently Arm's politics are bubbling over onto Wikipedia a bit. Whee. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Armageddon has the most odd combination of drama and survivability I've ever seen. It must be 20 years old now, and it still keeps going... Surprised that sort of thing hasn't happened on-Wiki before now, actually. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Random assertions
Please do not continue to make misleading assertions like "when he used his administrative privileges to do things like adjusting whitespace". You are supposed to be an impartial arbitrator, not making up additional assertions for the evidence phase, which closed a considerable time ago. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC).


 * You're speaking as if the case was still open--it's over and done, and I'm speaking in generalities, rather than referring to specific instances. I thought it overkill to refer to specific evidence, and did not intend what I said to be taken as a specific allegation, but rather a descriptor of the sort of edits that proved problematic. What would you prefer I substitute for what I originally wrote? Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is simply that it is substantively wrong to say that. No one in the case, or anywhere else has ever alleged that.  It speaks volumes that you could think that is part of the case, and explains, perhaps, how such a grotesque travesty of a decision was reached. Rich Farmbrough, 05:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * I could have clarified that by "administrative privileges", I'm referring primarily to noratelimit and AWB access, and that "like adjusting whitespace", I am describing the relative value of your contested edits (cosmetic), and not saying that you did, in fact, adjust whitespace. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not make, by and large, cosmetic edits. I have no idea why you think noratelimit is relevant, and AWB access is completely irrelevant, since I would have had specific access if I had not had admin access to the tool. Again you must have been in a different arbcom case from me. Rich Farmbrough, 07:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * All admins have permanent access to AWB; desysoping you was the only way to remove it without hacking in a workaround to say "All admins except Rich F", as I understand it. I have personally seen edits where you changed the capitalization in templates on pages; you may not call things like this cosmetic, but I do. Note that for the record I am not claiming that that specific edit is automated, or covered by the case, but it is an example of what I would call cosmetic editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That edit you show is of course obviously not made with AWB, I hope you can find more clear examples because without it you do not have any evidence that Rich abused AWB to do cosmetic changes, which you however assert. And desysopping Rich Farmbrough as an enforcement to disable the use of WP:AWB by him is of course a clear case of assuming bad faith (I could expand this ad adsurdum).  Not to say that AWB nowadays can be set to not save cosmetic changes which would further negate your necessity to take his administrative powers.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have to find "examples" or "evidence" at all; my illustration of what I meant by what I said is appropriate courtesy on my part. The case has been decided, sanctions have been applied, and the ball is in Rich's court regarding how he conducts himself going forward. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly where the problem is - you put a verdict without being able to show evidence. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK- short strokes. I conduct myself by not lying. I expect that you would want to do the same.  When I draw your attention to an untruth you have uttered about me I don't expect you to fight and fight about what you meant. I expect you to say, at the very least "I'm sorry, I was mistaken" not to prevaricate with made up technical defence of what you are saying. Rich Farmbrough, 07:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * And I would hope you able to understand the difference between an illustration and a statement of fact, and to propose concrete alternatives for improvement if my illustrations erred. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that I didn't abuse my admin bit. Therefore saying as a throwaway line that I did is promulgating exactly the sort of slander that caused so many problems in the first place.  If you are unable to actually find something that I did wrong, which  seems to be the case you should ask to have your votes for sanctions rescinded.  You should not go around making false claims and expect me to come up with valid ones when you can't stand them up, even when you have completely re-written them three times.   You should have the good grace to apologise, but maybe that's too much to expect. Rich Farmbrough, 08:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * You're asking for two things: an apology and a redo of part the case. Which is more important to you? Pick one, and only one, if you want to continue the conversation. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does Rich only have right on one? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can parse that, but I think you mean "Why does Rich have to pick only one?". He doesn't. He just has to articulate which is more important to him: an apology or an opportunity to redo any part of the case. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, maybe I did not parse it correctly or completely. Thanks for the clarification.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really bothered if you apologiɀe or not, the few genuine apologies I have received on Wikipedia have raised people in my estimation substantially (most of these have been driven off the project needless to say). I am not asking here for either of the things you talk about, I am saying that you should apologiɀe as a matter of self respect, and respect for others.  If you don't have that respect fine.  As for revisions to the case I will use the normal channels for that, and your strange Morton's Fork above can sit unanswered. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

how I think you should have done it
sent it as a notice to alert admins that such a thing had happened.  DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, there's definitely a rush to defend established contributors, even when they're clearly in the wrong. Improving Wikipedia through pointing out inappropriate conduct has not been working too well for me lately.  We'll see how the next ArbCom election deals with things--not just for me, but for the newcomers who've also been very willing to sanction established contributors. Jclemens (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of synthesis
Please see WP:SYNTH for what synthesis means. I have reverted your change to WP:SS. Synthesis is the sticking together of bits which were never meant to imply something, not that the stuff doesn't exist. There is no need to reiterate that guideline in WP:SS and it is only there to effect a synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you didn't revert me, you reverted the next editor. Given how widespread the misunderstanding is--that notability limits article contents--I think it appropriately belongs in WP:SS.  While you're entitled to an opinion that it does not belong there, I would encourage you to not edit war to keep a reference to a relevant policy out... Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * J, this is now 3 reverts by Dmcq in 2 edit sets, refusal to discuss on Wikipedia talk:Summary style (please see), two edit summaries that I consider personal attacks, and unclear objection to a verbatim two sentences of WP:N. What should I do? Thanks. JJB 01:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Never mind, now at ANI, I will mention your name, thanks. JJB 01:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Engage him on his talk page. Try and find a middle ground that addresses everyone's objections.  Failing that, I'm sure you know about the dispute resolution process--whatever you do, don't edit war.  The person who edit wars over policy is automagically presumed to be the loser. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No thanks. There was a centralized discussion at WP:VPP where he couldf have given his reasons for inconsistency saying he believed notability was required and then sticking that into WP:SS. I have now raised the question of his behaviour at Wikipedia:ANI#Disruptive_eDmcq (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're saying about policy is true, but it's only half of the situation. I've seen people split things out, and then someone else asserts non-notability and argues for deletion of the spinout article because it's not notable.  In fact, things spun out prematurely and without sufficient notability for the subtopic should be merged back into the parent article.  Highlighting WP:NNC appropriately in WP:SS seems the best way to educate users about the difference between something that doesn't merit its own article, and something that should be deleted as inappropriate content. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out to you the guideline already says 'Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic' which I believe covers that exact point. The guideline is about summaries and setting up subtopics but I guess what you say could be put into a section about possible merging back. However that is not at all how it was put into the guideline. Dmcq (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway I'll take you off my watchlist now as I've taken up enough of your talk page, that was about the subject rather than anything personal and I don't want to turn it into a wall of text like happened at VPP!. Dmcq (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't mind continuing the discussion. Once I make an edit which is reverted, I would much, much rather discuss the issues--and here is as good a place as any. I find that I prefer discussing 1:1 or 2:1 like this, because it's easier to ferret out what the real differences are and work towards a solution that answers everyone's objections. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I did have a look for a reply :) Thanks for that offer, in general I'm happy to go on about how things work or ways to do things or a bit of general waffle or even a few days of a one to one dispute, but I have this thing against meatpuppetry and canvassing and groupthink so for longer or wider disputes I try for transparency as far as possible - so I try to practice what I preach as far as talking about articles or policies is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I'm so much drowning in watchlist that I occasionally miss important discussions on policy pages I care about, though, so while I would personally prefer your approach, I am entirely willing to forego my voice being heard on the policy page, if the disputant(s) can work out differences here. As long as someone gets the change "right", it doesn't matter who gets the credit. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * N has been discussed by the MMA people for months or years. My unique attempt at mediation (which Dmcq calls an "end run") was essentially my own idea from my knowledge of policy, not that of the MMA project. Jclemens is essentially correct but there is much more to the story at VPP. JJB 02:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm intentionally ignorant about the MMA world and the disputes surrounding its events' representation on Wikipedia; I have the bad feeling that it will end up at ArbCom sooner or later, and I have no intention of wading into it prematurely. What I'm basing my statements on is fictional elements, which are my own area of greatest interest (and would already be recused in any case arriving before ArbCom). Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cold revert by Dennis
Sorry to have involved you tangentially in MMA when you might have thought you were "only" making a simple policy improvement edit. Presuming on your invitation to discuss, I think Dennis's reversion, along with his subtext that sounds to me like a threat of tools, is worthy of discussion. If I tried DR as you suggest, I might be at Medcab e.g. trying to explain why 2 sentences of WP:N should be in WP:SS and why Dmcq has offered no reasons why not, along with why Dennis's whole setting the clock back 2 weeks should also be undone, and I would hate to initiate that discussion where your name might be drawn in and smeared with the MMA brush (as mine now has after a completely neutral start). Since you had a preferred version that Dennis has reverted, and he also seems to be hinting a nascent contradiction to your initial statement that this is not a matter for tools, I am hopeful you can provide a quantum of guidance. JJB 22:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When I edit policies, I do so as a user with 4+ years active and involved experience dealing with the nuances, not with any of the funny, special hats on. I don't know that I had a specific "preferred" version, while I do have a general agreement that WP:NNC should be added to WP:SS, because split/merge discussions should not degenerate into deletion, but rather un-splitting, merging, would be the preferred remedy.  I have no desire to involve myself in the specifics as it applies to MMA or any sporting events whatsoever, which are not areas of my own particular expertise. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration regarding GoodDay
As can be seen from his edit history and the user box he added to his user talk page, GoodDay's preferred edits are gnomish ones, applying small corrections repetitively. He is willing to take on tasks that others may find dull, and in this way can contribute positively to Wikipedia. I do not believe a complete ban is warranted; I think a limitation, with specified penalties, on being involved in his hot button issues may be more suitable. isaacl (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like the sort of input that should go on the case request page to make sure it's visible by all arbitrators. Would you mind if I moved it? Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit torn between a desire to avoid the arbitration pages (which seem to breed combative behaviour) and a wish to find a way to keep GoodDay as productive as possible and not banned completely. Resolute has posted a very good statement on the request page which I hope will be given due consideration. However, I will give more thought to posting a statement as well. isaacl (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed your thoughtful contributions there, and thank you for taking the time to speak your mind on this topic. Moderate voices from the community like yours should be better represented in arbitration proceedings than they are. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2008–09 Liga Indonesia Premier Division
Please restore that article, thanks.&#42;Annas* (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Community confidence
I believe you have lost community confidence as a Checkuser and Arbiter. Under what circumstances would you step down? Hipocrite (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the community confidence in you is unshaken, and, in fact, is getting stronger. The use of sniping by any editor or sadmin is something I fear is intended to force you to recuse in cases involving them, which is cointrary to the intent of the pillars of Wikipedia, the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and quite importantly contrary to the policies and procedures governing the acts of ArbCom in itself. (bolding intentional) Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To alleviate Collect's concern, I do not believe you have an obligation to recuse in a case involving me unless it also involves you as a party. I merely wish to determine what would cause you to resign from the committee - a talk page petition? an RFC? a full case? Hipocrite (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means start an RFC/U on Mr. Clemens. I suggest you might not appreciate the results.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as part of the community, I'm not aware of anything which would lead me to lose confidence in Jclemens (as a checkuser or arbitrator or anything else). I suppose you could lay out the details for us, though. Oh, and I think "a talk page petition" would be a pretty silly idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer the original question, the circumstances in which I would step down include...
 * If I've lost the confidence of the community, and am not reelected.
 * If I've lost the confidence of the rest of the committee, and am asked to step down. While the committee may remove me by vote, my threshold for stepping down in the face of peer-based opposition is much lower.
 * If I lose the ability to tolerate when consensus is against me. Or, if I find I've lost the will to continue to propose difficult actions that are necessary for the continued health of the encyclopedia. This is a really important point: anyone in a position of "authority" on Wikipedia needs to balance their belief in the appropriateness of their viewpoints with the consensus process, and be able to tell the difference between a few vocal individuals griping and true community consensus.  Likewise, if I'm not being opposed by anyone, then I've just become a rubber stamp, exercising no initiative and doing no one any good.
 * If my personal circumstances change such that I'm not able to devote the amount of time I believe appropriate to Wikipedia.
 * If I ever catch myself thinking of myself as a master of Wikipedia, rather than its servant.
 * If I'm not doing something "wrong" occasionally, then I must not be trying hard enough. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, another thing to keep aware of: I never have had more than, what, 60% support in the two elections in which I've been elected to the committee. So the fact that a large number of wikipedians do not favor me having a position on the committee (or liked other candidates better, etc.) is simply part of the background under which I serve all Wikipedians.  If I wanted to be popular, I wouldn't be first to address problems, proposals, and the like.  I'd be a lot more... deliberative, like several of the more popular arbitrators are.  While I appreciate the value of such detached consideration and realize its necessity, in isolation it really would not help move cases along, nor identify and solve problems.  Inasmuch as the committee ever uses anything resembling Good cop/bad cop, I'm the "bad cop".  The analogy isn't really apt, though, since we aren't manipulating any interrogations--we're just trying to get to the right answer for the encyclopedia as expeditiously as possible. I have no illusions that my popularity has anything but plummeted by my doing my job in the way I promised to in my election statements... But that's what I signed up for, and I anticipate discharging those duties to the best of my ability through the end of my elected term. Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely put, that balance between pushing forward and leading from behind is always necessary in a community. Be— —Critical  21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hipocrite here. Anyone who has seen you working of the last few days, in relation to Mathsci and with your strange "apology or re-litigation" question, would have to question your WP:COMPETENCE. Also you just voted in direct opposition to your stated position. You are leaving some very puzzled editors here. Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC).


 * If we ever decide to commission a survey of previously sanctioned editors and/or ex-administrators' opinions of arbcom members, I'll be sure that you get one, Rich. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Darn it, JC, have you gone and made yourself inconvenient again? Does the good opinion of Wikipedia Review mean nothing to you? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I in WR again? Gotta read my press more often... Jclemens-public (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea, tbh. Just picking on the lowest-hanging example of entitled neckbeards sitting on the gunwale and sneeringly critiquing the technique of those bailing out the boat. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your conduct


A senior administrator and checkuser Deskana has indicated that the information I provided about these two sockpuppets in 2 recent SPI reports, per, was adequate without checkuser or further investigations for identifying this long-term wikihounding socking troll. In these circumstances of blatant immediately identifiable sockpuppetry, what precisely was your reason for spending so much time suggesting otherwise and making sneering innuendos about my conduct vis-a-vis the edits of these blatant sockpuppets? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the Gonsalez account. Can you link to what I said about it?
 * On Jello carotids, here's how it went: Somehow, I noticed that you'd reverted someone else in an SPI on yourself. I believe I did that because I saw something else interesting you'd done, and that caused me to look into your recent contributions roughly 48 hours ago.  I looked at the reversion you'd made, and found that it contained a plausible assertion of wrongdoing on your part: that is, it asserted you were keeping evidence against other users, after a case had concluded, in violation of WP:UP (clauses 2 and 3 being the relevant ones). I investigated the assertions and came to the conclusion that they represented actual wrongdoing on your part, which made your action in reverting them impermissible and a further wrong.
 * WP:BAN says anyone can revert anything a banned user says at any time. But, like "AGF is not a suicide pact", neither is WP:BAN. It was never proper for you, the accused editor, who was guilty of the conduct asserted as improper, to remove the accusation of that impropriety from your own SPI page.  That is, at that point, the SPI on Mathsci is not about Jello carotids--whose SPI I never challenged or changed in any way--but about your own improper behavior.  Since I found that he had a legitimate basis for complaint against you, I reverted both the removal and the archiving of the case per BAN, although "on behalf of" a banned editor is tenuous, because I was more interested in your behavior than the presumed-sock edits.
 * Further, rather than saying "Wow, you're right, someone else should have reverted that, since I did actually maintain that account, but for really good reasons which I'll email Arbcom about", you repeatedly made false statements that you had never reverted in your own SPI. The fact that your two messages after you were caught keeping evidence post-case was auto-discarded by our mailing list software is entirely regrettable, and would have helped clear up the matter many hours sooner, but to summarize, you did three things wrong in this case, the first two of which are each a root cause: had you not done either one, the SPI would not have been unarchived and pursued as it was:
 * 1) You maintained evidence on a "hidden" page after the R&I review was closed,
 * 2) You reverted another user, sockpuppet or not, who made an accurate observation in the proper venue that you had engaged in the condct in 1) and a policy based argument that it was impermissible, and
 * 3) You made materially false statements in the SPI about your conduct in 2).
 * At any rate, I hope the recap provides enough illustration for why I took action on the basis of a banned user's complaint.  Given that ArbCom's got a number of things on its plate right now, an ArbCom motion will not likely be immediately forthcoming--especially since a block is not a likely outcome in light of ArbCom's mailing list failure which delayed our receiving your explanation through no fault of yours.  I believe you've received a separate email from one of our mailing list administrators confirming that problem.
 * You have my most sincere apologies for both the mailing list error and the fact that you've been subjected to repeated harassment by sockpuppets. I sincerely regret that you took action in light of the latter which was itself impermissible. Jclemens (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens you are an official checkuser. The blatant sockpuppet whom you enabled started by uncollapsing the edits of the first sockpuppet, whom I have mentioned several times, including in the recent email to arbcom (it's has been re-sent and forwarded to you). That first sockpuppet was indefinitely blocked by FPaS for adding trolling comment to WP:AN about Echigo mole and all his past manifestations. One account not mentioned by me was, but the socks decided nevertheless to inform him of the WP:AN report. So, per, the coupled contributions, one even making reference to the previously blocked account, deafeningly screamed "Echigo mole." Everybody else agreed, including Deskana. So with your own experience you also should have noticed that without any effort. But you chose not to and stubbornly took the side of the blatant troll, ignoring the previous account he had to abandon after it had been indefinitely blocked. Once the banned editor was identified, his edits could be removed anywhere per WP:BAN and WP:DENY. An SPI report is not necessary, if the sockpuppetry is blatant, which was the case here (an AN thread about Echigo mole).

I have no alternative hidden accounts since they were all declared unambiguously on the user pages and their edits were purely in user space. The userpage Alternative-mathsci for example has "as it says". You are presumably joking, as MastCell has already said, when you suggest that the account Aixoisie involved any level of concealment because of the dots between the letters of Mathsci. Other administrators understood that I used that device because of the previous actions of Echigo mole (as ) who requested an SPI report on 29 March. Did you even look at it? The existence of a list of rough diffs in an alternative account was mentioned explicitly on the arbitration review pages on 27 March and must have prompted Echigo mole to search for it.

Did you read that comment on the talk page of the evidence page of the review then? If you did and you now have such severe misgivings about gathering diffs to prepare evidence (OMG what a crime once evidence has been explicitly requested!), why did you not mention that then? You had ample time and, as other administrators have said, if you wanted to know about the account then you could quite easily have requested information then. But apparently you did not object to Alternative-mathsci then; but now do object violently to the almost identical account Aixoisie.

If on the other hand you did not read that comment, that is not a good sign. I don't see the difference between Alternative-mathsci and Aixioisie. When Echigo mole's sock Southend sofa filed the first SPI report on 29 March, three other administrators looked at the account Alternative-mathsci (Dougweller, Amalthea, DeltaQuad) with all the lists of rough diffs before they were deleted and moved. They found no problem. The lists of rough diffs were preparatory pages for evidence which was hard to compile. Multiple other editors including almost all arbitrators recognize Echigo mole as a malevolent editor, set on creating trouble. You apparently found it convenient not to recognize that; that has resulted in you acting as his enabler, possibly unwittingly. Old-time administrators dealt with the report of Southend sofa, dismissing it immediately; your treatment of the almost carbon copy report of Jello carotids was leagues apart. There was drama-creating rhetoric, a draconian full protection of files (totally unnecessary for future scrutiny), a checkuser hold on the SPI report with repeated claims of "abusive alternative accounts". No other administrators have agreed with you so far and, when they disagreed at the 2nd SPI report by the banned user, you even made threats towards them by trying to assert some higher authority. Enabling banned disruptive users just brings this project into disrepute. Splitting hairs over which particular edits of banned editors can be reverted is open to debate: if there is a list of multiple trolling edits, I don't think in great detail about the difference between each edit (as the timing of my reverts shows). Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the whole SPI report with an edit summary indicating that it had been posted by a banned editor. Instead of having a calm discussion with FPaS about that very dubious SPI report, you chose to follow a drama-creating route. Almost all administrators have disagreed with the path you followed and you have ignored them. Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Three things you should have said above, but didn't:
 * 1) "I'm sorry for retaining evidence after the case review was closed; it was improper for me to do so in-any on-wiki location"
 * 2) "I regret reverting that among the sockpuppet edits I reverted, was that of a legitimate complaint about my actions in retaining evidence after the case review was closed. It gave the appearance that I was trying to hide something, which I was not--I was just being so thorough in reverting the edits that I failed to notice that the one edit was in an SPI on me."
 * 3) "I regret that my statements about not reverting the sock in my own SPI were inaccurate. I was thinking you'd confused my reversion in the Echigo Mole SPI, but I was mistaken."
 * And, for good measure, you might add...
 * 4) "I should have explicitly declared Aixoisie to the arbitration committee per WP:SOCK as soon as it was created; while not required, adopting that best practice would have avoided this misunderstanding"
 * Until and unless you can accept that your actions caused this problem, there's really nothing else to say here. You're focusing on things that aren't even in dispute (of course it was a sock) or simply aren't relevant to your own misconduct. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are demanding apologies form Mathsci, yet you won't apologize for outright lies about me? Some mistake surely. Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Well, I neither demanded anything from him, nor refused to apologize to you. I asked above if an apology is more important than re-litigating your case, and you declined to answer.  If you'd like your apology, simply clarify that that, rather than any relitigation of a closed case, is what you're most interested in, and you'll have it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a rather pathological position. Re-litigation is not in your gift, and an apology would be good for you not me.  So why do you insist on repeating this odd question? Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Jonathan I understand you're a graduate student and it's great to see how full of ideas you are. I am not sure what statement I would make. All your suggestions seem to be nutty and ill-conceived. I have no idea what put those silly ideas in your head. I might possibly say, "I am disappointed in the actions of Jonathan Clemens. He appears to be nursing a grudge following his re-election to arbcom and his mistaken trust in two users, now both site-banned from wikipedia, who were involved in a calculated deception. Jonathan's reaction has been to show that I have been involved in an even worse act of deception in meticulously chronicling their actions. I have gathered diffs in clearly marked alternative accounts, which he has repeatedly described as "abusive". Multiple other adminstrators have expressed disagreement with him but he has attempted to assert his own greater authority over them." But would it really be necessary to say that? Best in the circumstances to say nothing. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with your proposed statements is that they assume bad faith in me, while mine assume the best faith of you. I've dropped the arguable bits, such that the facts as I stated them really aren't in dispute: You kept evidence after the case was over, you reverted a sockpuppet who pointed that out, and you still haven't owned up to making false statements about doing so.  And, for the record, I neither hold grudges nor play favorites. That Ferahgo/CO adequately helped out with parsing evidence in a prior case gained them zero special treatment, just as your predominantly accurate and helpful efforts identifying problematic editors in certain areas don't give you a pass. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately once you start relying on the edits of a long term abusive editor like Echigo mole to support your arguments, any assumptions of good faith disappear through a large hole in the ground. You've been told that repeatedly by administrators and your reaction has been WP:IDHT. Why all the needless drama. Jonathan? The page protections, the restoration of a bogus SPI and your own bullying of administrators and me as if you are some kind of Uebermensch? No you have sought to portray me in the worst possible light you could, taking advantage of a long-term trolling sock. No thanks, matey. Mathsci (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the problems the real-life police have to deal with all the time is that many of the witnesses to and victims of crimes are themselves criminals, prone to lie to the police when it is to their advantage, yet real life authorities work within this world effectively. In this case, your initial inappropriate retention of material was spotted by a serial, abusive sockmaster... but that doesn't make the observation inaccurate.  You act as if I've somehow elevated Echigo Mole to sainthood and handed him a full pardon for finding something you'd really done wrong.  On the contrary--he's still banned, still going to be reverted every time he appears, and as far as I'm concerned nothing has changed about his status.  It's your status, (can I use your first name here, since you've used mine?), that has been diminished by your conduct. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the statement about the alternative account that I wrote on March 27? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As for using my first name, would you even dare do that? Your first name has been used elsewhere on wikipedia, but if you prefer me not to use it, I won't. Please just say so. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you declare the name to ArbCom in email prior to its discovery? No, unless far more mail is missing than previously ascertained.  Did you seek or receive permission to keep evidence on-wiki past the close of the case? Not to the best of my knowledge.  Please, correct me if I'm wrong on either point.
 * As far as the names business goes, I don't recall where I've ever posted my first name on enwiki. I know others with whom I've corresponded elsewhere have used a first name to refer to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not answering the question. Your were told explicitly on wikipedia on 27 March that alternative account existed. They were clearly labelled and restricted to userspace. The notification was very visible on the arbcom review page. You or any other arbitrator could have requested to have the account identified in private if you required. You did nothing then. As far as I am aware, there is no automatic obligation to send any notification to arbcom about alternative accounts. Which piece of wikipedia policy are you citing there? If any arbitrator had wanted to know details of the account, I would have told them, as I have done now. But nobody asked. The existence of these account does not seem problematic and nor does your qulifier "abusive" apply.  Because of Echigo mole's first trolling SPI report on 29 March, the first alternative account was looked at by 3 administrators, including a checkuser, and they found no problem. So why are you are making these claims of "abusive alternative accounts" continually? Mathsci (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides if you reslly believed that the accounts were abusive and created to mislead and deceive other wikipedians, you would have blocked those accounts and mine. If you did that, however, you would not remain an administrator for very much longer. Please stop bullying me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I never denied that you mentioned an alternative account; I've stated that you didn't declare the name to ArbCom. This is primarily important because it kept me looking into the allegations.  One of the first things I did after I spotted your reversion on your SPI was to search my Wikipedia mail archives for the name Aixoisie--and I didn't find it.  Had I found it, my review of your reverting an accusation against yourself on your SPI page would have probably ended right there.  But I didn't find it, so I kept looking, and found the quite extensive copies of evidence that were the problem.  If you will, maintaining lists of diffs absent a current proceeding was the main problem, and the fact that it was as lightly linked and declared as possible was merely the aggravating circumstance surrounding the discovery of that improper use.  You may well have been trying to hide it from Echigo Mole, which you appear to have failed at, but you also gave no evidence of having declared it to ArbCom.  Had you done so, someone might have reminded you to delete the evidence pages. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC


 * If you or anybody else wanted to know the name of the account you have my email and could have asked. There's no rule about declaring accounts to arbcom if they're clearly labelled. Certainly any trusted editor would have been told, if they had asked. Ferahgo seems to be  posting below once more through her proxy-editor TrevelyanL85A2. Why did they choose your page? Were they hoping that you would block me? That is certainly how it looks. Ferahgo's claim to have left wikipedia behind seems not to have been genuine, like much of what she has written. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that Ferahgo and Captain Occam are indeed separate persons. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How interesting. Mathsci (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Banned user posts
I would like arbcom to make a ruling about when it's necessary to revert posts from a banned user, and when it's acceptable to not do that. I had another issue with this yesterday when Mathsci and one other person tag-teamed to remove a post by Echigo Mole from my user talk, after I'd made it clear I didn't mind it being there and that I didn't want Mathsci editing my page. This also was before the sockpuppet had been blocked or tagged by anyone besides Mathsci. They claimed their actions were demanded by policy, but that doesn't seem right: I thought I had the right to determine things like this about my own userspace.

In the edit summary for one of his reverts, Mathsci suggested I ask a member of arbcom about this, which also confuses me because I know individual arbitrators don't have special authority when they aren't speaking for the whole committee. Is there a way to get the committee to weigh in on this issue?TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant guidance is at BAN. In short, while Mathsci and other editors have the right to revert banned user edits, you have the ability to re-revert them into Wikipedia, at which point they become your responsibility, so be very careful about potential problems with them.  The advisability of this is questionable, but you're asking for the rules, and there you have them.  Oh, and no, no one is REQUIRED to revert a banned user, so they do have a choice not to.  If you asked everyone inclined to leave your talk page alone, and yet they continued to revert banned user(s) posting there, that would be an interesting situation, that I don't see any precedent for... but I believe the community would likely let BAN dominate, since by definition conversations with a banned user can't involve improving the encyclopedia.  So, now you have my opinion as well.
 * My advice on the other hand: if you want to carry on a conversation with a banned user, use email. There are free and anonymous email providers everywhere. Much less hassle for everyone involved. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tag team? Nice one, Ferahgo. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Together, you and Johnuniq made the same revert four times in less than a day. Tag teaming is working together to revert more than three times in a day, as you did.


 * You asked me to post here. You said to ask a member of arbcom about this, and Jclemens was following these issues. But even when I'm taking your advice, I see there's nothing I can do to make you drop your battleground attitude against me, or these accusations of proxying for other people that you know aren't supported by any finding of fact. You also reverted my talk page again after I asked you to stop editing it.


 * What would I have to do to make you leave me alone, and stop editing my userspace? You have already been admonished for battlefield conduct, and the right thing for you to do now would be to drop the issue, not to keep pursuing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Tag team means coordinated editing. Unless you have some proof of coordinated editing, please don't use the term. As for posting here, your purpose seems to be very similar, almost indistinguishable, to recent postings on arbitrator pages of Ferahgo's other friend SightWatcher. Policy is clear enough about banned users: just follow the links to WP:BAN and WP:DENY that have been quoted to you several times. If you want some form of special treatment, you can I suppose present your case at Requests for amendment. But since your own silence since January during the arbitration proceedings has been unaccounted for, your sudden miraculous return to wikipedia and confrontational statements here might not be a factor that would speak in your favour. Your own conduct here, once more giving the appearance of acting as a proxy-editor, seems to be a continuation of the calculated deception that resulted in your topic ban. Please try not to give that appearance in future.  Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to do here. I don't think I should cooperate with Mathsci trying to reopen the review after it's closed, but trying to avoid the issue also didn't work.

Jclemens, please give me your advice. I have been trying to avoid drama at Wikipedia since it came and found me in my user talk in January. That's why I stopped editing everything related to race and intelligence in January, months before I was topic banned. But this drama still came to find me in my user talk when I had been inactive for four months. I understand now that trying to avoid this issue isn't enough, and neither is asking Mathsci to stay off my user talk, but I don't know what I need to do to avoid this.

More generally, I would like to know what if anything arbcom is doing about Mathsci's continued battleground attitude, after it didn't stop when he was admonished for it. This makes the editing environment on R&I articles toxic, and it also makes it impossible for people like me to escape from R&I drama when we want to. I know arbcom cares about these things, but their efforts to stop it seem half-hearted. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the similarlity of the above edit with previous postings of SightWatcher. Two editors speaking with the same voice. The proxy-editing still seems to be going on after Ferahgo's site ban. TrevelyanL85A2 has already broken his extended topic ban by writing "This makes the editing environment on R&I articles toxic". TrevelyanL85A2 is not allowed to discuss R&I matters anywhere, unless he has been mentioned and the topic is being discussed. No such matter was being discussed, just technical matters concerning banned editors and alternative accounts. TrevelyanL85A2 inserted himself in a thread here where he was not being discussed and has made the above inflammatory statements about the area of his topic ban. Someone could easily report him now at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose such an outcome. Asking me for advice on how to proceed is not a license to continue problematic behavior that led to sanctions in the first place...  And I'll note that that asking me for advice was a favourite tactic of FtA/CO. But again, there was also no particular need for you to join in, Mathsci, as the poster is getting exactly as much support as he's ever going to get from me here, and your joining in has probably prompted back-and-forth which otherwise would not have appeared. Jclemens (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your untruths
Let me perfectly clear, I have no intention, now or in the future, to sue you or other Wikipedia editors for slander or libel made on Wikipedia. That does not mean I will not clearly label it as such. Running to NLT for protection from your own behaviour is not becoming. Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC).


 * That's good to hear, and what I expected. I further expect you won't object to keeping a more neutral tone on the subject heading in order to avoid confusing people who don't actually read this notice.  Frankly, I'm concerned that that edit almost seemed an attempt at suicide-by-arbcom, and encourage you to avoid such escalation.  By all means, take a break if you're not feeling up to participating appropriately at the moment, and come back when you're feeling like creating content. The fact you still insist on calling illustrations "untruths" is something I don't find promising, but if that's what helps you work through this time, I'll agree to disagree on it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * False illustrations are false. I'm sure it's usual to quietly let minor falsehoods slip away, into the mists of time, but I have found that on Wikipedia they are then dragged up years later and believed by no less august personages as Arbitrators. Therefore I intend be active in correcting them whenever I see them occur, if this makes a little less easy to get on with than the old Rich who would have just said, "sure you want to make stuff up, go ahead, it doesn't affect me" then that is the fault of those who promulgate and believe such tosh. Rich Farmbrough, 00:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC).


 * So, would you like me to go back and edit my statement to make it more accurate, like I asked your input on a week ago? Oh, wait... you've already done that, rather than specify what you believe would have been an adequate substitution--an edit I did not contest, I'll note.  At any rate, since you've deleted the illustrative statement that you believe to have painted you in an inappropriately false light and have yet to specify an apology as your most desired outcome, I think we're done here. Again, you have my best wishes for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia, if you ever choose to focus on doing so rather than on attempting to find fault in the processes and persons responsible for sanctioning you. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, you make the accusation that he is performing cosmetic edits using AWB on his main account; you make the accusation that he has misused AWB on his main account and that desysop is necessary to stop Rich Farmbrough from continue abusing AWB on his main account - either you are able to show diffs that he has done that, or you have to withdraw that accusation. Either YOU show that your remark has merit, you withdraw the false illustration and replace it with a proper one, or you fail to do so and withdraw the whole remark.  It is absurd to ask for Rich (or of me, or of a random other user) to find a replacement for your wrong example.  Could you please provide a proper example for that statement?  Thank you.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I noted above that Rich has already removed the statement in question and failed to ask for an apology when asked if that was his most desired outcome. As far as I'm concerned this topic is closed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to find fault. I am having my face ground into the faults by the jackboot of process, and the gauntlet of personalities.  I am pleased to see that modifications to process are already underway.  My primary, if somewhat localized aim is to remove the obstacles that have unreasonably and against the spirit of the Wiki been thrown in the way of contributing to the encyclopaedia.  I would like to say that once that is done I will continue to press for reform, stand for ArbCom, re-write policy, get more active on AN/I and DR, but the truth is I will most likely be far too busy contributing to the 40% that  is content to continue my  involvement with the 60% that is dramah.  I really dislike these long drawn out battles, where people are out to do one another down.  It seems to me a friendly approach and a thoughtful approach  resolves 99% of disputes before they even become disputes. And indeed this is born out by experience.  Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Proforma
You may have your hands full and have no need to chime in, but I did mention you (without naming you) at a new thread at ANI to which I was invited. JJB 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Summary_style.

This RfC is to decide the business JJB has wanted. I added a third option that I believe reflects your concerns about the matter. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankheg
I see you came up with a number of sources in the last AFD, so I wanted to notify you that this one has been nominated again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted and voted, but I trust you notified every past AfD participant, right? Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, despite Folken de Fanel’s claims to the contrary, I was only contacting those who had provided sources in the previous AFD (you and Casliber) because I was hoping you might be able to find more. Since you think it is a good idea – and you asked nicely – I will notify participants in the previous AFD. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. See WP:CANVASS for a bit more on Wikipedia's expectations for notifications.  While it might seem logical to only notify people who've actually provided sources, that might create an appearance of bias. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Now who is canvassing? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said to the IP, I'm merely notifying participants in a similar AfD about another D&D monster, all the other users not notified by me have already expressed themselves in the Ankheg AfD, otherwise I would have also notified them. Seeing how the IP is starting to notify unrelated users about this, I think that what could be seen as "involuntary canvassing" before is now starting to turn into a harassment case.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My contention was that - despite Folken's claims that he was only notifying users on one AFD who had not taken part in another AFD - his reaching out to people was entirely partisan because all voted to delete. I sought out two administrators, the same two I had originally sought out for the Ankheg AFD for better sourcing, to weigh in on the issue. Just because I did something I only later realize I should not have done, does not give a critic the right to "balance the scales". 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not explain that a third time (well, fourth, actually, since I already said that on the IP's talk page), all the other users not notified by me have already expressed themselves in the Ankheg AfD, I wasn't going to notify them a second time, otherwise I would have contacted them also. There was nothing partisan in what I did, since all the users who have commented in Articles for deletion/Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) at the time I write have been notified about the existence of Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination), which is only logical since these are very similar topic and might interest the same people, and is perfectly neutral and unbiased. No notice has been sent based on contributors' opinion, but only on their earlier participation or not in a similar AfD. That's the last thing I'll say on that issue since it's obvious that the IP is throwing groundless accusation in an attempt to get even with me for warning him about canvassing, and I trust Jclemens to solve this issue as it should be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is NOT improper for another editor to follow up partial notification by completing notification of prior AfD participants; if the second editor appears to have a selection bias in doing so, that would be a necessary consequence of the first editor having cherry-picked editors to notify. Bottom line? Notify one, notify all, and let consensus be determined fairly. Jclemens-public (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem here might be that Folken was inviting people from the Afanc AFD to the Ankheg AFD. I suppose the fact that only the "delete" voters were left to notify was as "convenient" for him as the fact that nearly all of the "delete" voters from Ankheg AFD 1 had gone inactive. Oh well, it's probably a tempest in a teapot, and I will drop the subject. SudoGhost raised the concern in the Afanc AFD already, so I guess I am not the only one who looked at this activity with suspicion. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Afanc and Ankheg are different monsters. I agree that while they should be DELSORT'ed appropriately, inviting participants from one to the other is questionable, especially since Afanc has seen a preponderance of Delete !votes.  Still, having opined in one AfD, I am not going to take any administrator action with respect to either.  WP:ANI would be the place to ask for an uninvolved admin review if desired. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Afanc and Ankheg are both D&D monsters, so it's the same topic ("monsters in D&D"). Notifying "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" is an "appropriate behavior" according to WP:CAN. There is nothing "questionable", and "preponderance of delete !voters" is a non-argument, I certainly did not force anyone to take part to the Afanc AfD and did not pick it up for a "preponderance", since it was the only other D&D-related AfD going on at that time. Anyone is free to go to WP:ANI, but without a case it only seems a waste of time to me...Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a non-argument. You've accused the IP of canvassing, and then turned around and found a partisan audience to invite to a discussion you were losing. The reason I didn't vote in the Afanc AfD, even though it's delsort'ed similarly, is that I didn't disagree with the debate at the time I saw it.  An Ankheg is clearly more notable than an Afanc, which I'd never heard of despite a good decade of playing AD&D 1st edition.  You pointed out that every keep !voter had already opined in the Ankheg AfD, so you tacitly admit only recruiting one side of a debate.  Had you considered that the reason Ankheg will be kept and Afanc not is that they're not as identical as you have portrayed? Your behavior in this matter leaves a good bit to be desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't found a partisan audiance. It happens that another D&D monster-related AfD popped up, as per WP:CAN it was appropriate to notify its participants to another, similar AfD. It also happens that those who hadn't !voted yet in Ankheg were delete !voters, but this was unrelated to the notifications. All !voters of Afanc have been notified of the existence of Ankheg in one way or another. I don't admit recruiting one side of the debate, I just notified people who might be interested in a similar Afd, I just looked at the list of participants and notified those who didn't seem to be aware of Ankheg before, independently of their !votes. You'll note that I didn't notify either Sangrolu or Torchiest, who have !voted redirect Afanc, so you cannot accuse me "recuiting one side", since these two are part of the "delete" side. As for ankheg, it will be deleted as it's not notable, but I don't really see the point of discussing that here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, it was not deleted, because your interpretation of policy was not found to be normative. The most important thing to learn in Wikipedia is that no one--no one--is ever "right" all of the time, and that even when you're clearly convinced of the properness of your own position, it will often not be persuasive.  That is why impeccable conduct, on everyone's part, is so important, because we will be revisiting similar topics in the future. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support, the third one will be the good one, then.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The third what? Are you suggesting that you're already plotting to re-nominate a fictional element that was kept twice at AfD?  Please do remember that policies are normative, not prescriptive, so "but this should be the logical outcome!" can in fact be a disruptive argument.  If it's been kept twice, it may be the particular phrasing of the independence clause that is at odds with actual community practice. Since that's one of the bases on which I believe it should be kept, though, that well could be biased thinking on my part.  Have you already read my personal essay, linked above, on the notability of fictional elements? Jclemens-public (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As you said, "no one--no one--is ever "right" all of the time, and that even when you're clearly convinced of the properness of your own position", and I find it particularly relevant in this case, since the article was kept only because the supporters were able to muster an army of D&D fans at a given time, and that at the time of this nomination, 99% of the "delete" !voters of the 1st AfD had retired. But be sure that there will be a time when D&D fans will fail to gather in a sufficient number. I've seen AfDs on fictional topics closing on "delete" after 5 nominations over 4 years. Since for you, AfDs are only a question of number at a given time and nothing else ("policies are not prescriptive" is your way of saying "yes, I know this article doesn't meet the GNG but I don't care because I can shout louder than you"), then I don't see why we couldn't play by the same rules as you do...Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You ignore the fact that Ankheg should actually be in the encyclopedia because it's been around for 30+ years as a fictional monster, and Wikipedia, as a place where people turn to find such things, should show readers an appropriate article about it. If it's notable, that's a separate article. If it's not, that's a list entry.  At no point should it ever be deleted, and people who argue for deletion after being presented with WP:ATD are the ones arguing against existing policies. By trying to "win", you're trying to make the encyclopedia poorer.  You might benefit from reading another essay I started: WP:NIMEJclemens (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere in WP:ATD that non-notable articles have to be merged instead of being deleted, only "could". This is my last message here, you obviously don't know what you're talking about and I don't want to waste my time...Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Regular editing includes merging or redirection, which do not require administrator tools.  I'm sorry that you don't feel like you're learning here, because I will keep teaching you about how we serve the public by appropriately presenting fictional information in accordance with our pillars and guidelines, as long as you are open-minded enough to listen. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since policies are not prescriptive according to you, you shouldn't even be mentionning WP:ATD. If you consider Ankheg to be better off as a merge/redirect, you certainly don't need my permission to start the discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right Jclemens, that's why I got so upset. I did something that I thought was in good faith (wasn't trying to get keep votes, was trying to get more sources) but because it looked like I was doing something bad even thought I thought I had a good explanation, I got raked over the coals for it like I'm some kind of devious criminal. Then the same person turns around and does something which looks similar on the surface and I point out that it looks suspicious - in the same manner he had done - and I get threats and accusations of my own supposed impropriety in response. I'm familiar with the sort of thinking, though - my wife has to be right all the time, too, so I'm going to let this slide. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

warning logged at R&I?
shows me under R&I sanction - though I have not posted in that area AFAICT at all. The alleged claim that I 'hounded" Mathsci by suggesting trouts is outre - and sanctions when I showed no sign of doing such "hounding" (examine the number of overlaps we have and you will dfind no such acts) seems outre - especially since the entire "case" was based on 2 admins alone -- there seems to be no way to remove the sanction short of going to ArbCom (sigh).  Meanwhile I assure I have not "hounded" anyone at all, and I am pretty well known for my belief that 90% of the stuff on those noticeboards is not valuable to Wikipedia at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The good news is that R&I notifications are not sanctions, and are generally not going to be relevant if you've neither edited nor plan on editing in that area. Are you interested in an ArbCom finding that the conduct prompting the notification was, in fact, unconnected to R&I? That seems like it might be overkill to me. Jclemens-public (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The request that it be logged at R&I (the post here,  and then  which I found quite insulting and indicative of "I got what I wanted, and you can say nothing about it"-itis)  was quickly acted upon by FP  (I actually get some sleep at night) -- though the "evidence" of me "hounding" a person with whom I have had very few contacts ever was weird in the extreme  and based on me responding to a noticeboard where my name had been, in fact, mentioned.   Oh also note  where the editor then hounds me by posting at FPs UT page   LOL! I was amused by the thought that making a post in a section on a noticeboard when one has been mentioned can be considered "hounding" by anyone at all  and usually "hounding" does not involve telling folks to have a cup of tea -- but I suppose this is where Wikipedia is headed.  I had rather thought "hounding" meant having lots of interactions with a person with an implicit or explicit rationale of seeking to have them leave the project, which a cup of tea ought not do.   Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Appending:  I do not keep any sort of list of those whom I have run across -- but I wondered at that editor's vehemence -- looks like if anyone is "hounding" it is he -- see  etc.  over a period of years I seem to have attracted his attention far more than he ever attracted mine (he did object in a Larouche WQA section that he found my saying he agreed with me to be "rude"   but that is hardly a reason for his posts about me )  Offer him some Guinness - that should work?  Collect (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You might be better up bringing this up for a broader review. I don't deal very much with the required warnings, and while what happened to you seems pretty head-scratch-inducing to me, that doesn't mean that it might not be more usual than you or I realize. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI on banning LPC
In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up, but I will generally not participate in such discussions unless I would already be recused were the matter to come before ArbCom. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Question
What are the rules about doing an experiment where I create a new account and make a new article just to see the reaction from the community in regards to a notable subject being created by a new user? I know it's been done before, though I think the last time it was done, it was a part of a group test. Silver seren C 19:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWT was not at all well received, although I simply remember the events unfolding rather than being involved with it in any way. Thus, I don't have any specific advice, but I would urge caution on any such future effort. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking over the talk page, it seems the issue was that the articles they ended up making were rather bad. So, in retrospect, so long as I make a good article, it should be fine. Silver  seren C 20:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd encourage you to read through the talk pages and understand all of the community's objections. Also, consider the endgame: what are you trying to accomplish?  How will this experiment prove or refute a hypothesis? My impression is that a significant part of the problem with NEWT was that people felt it was a NIGYYSOB sort of effort, rather than genuine research to find and fix problems. If you're dead set on doing this, I'd recommend emailing the "newbie" account name either me or the entire committee per WP:SOCK. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was planning on doing that anyways. But the problem with the NIGYYSOB thing is that, what users and articles were involved has to be revealed at some point and the editors involved in negative actions against the new accounts are automatically going to feel that it was for a NIGYYSOB reason against them, even when it wasn't. I'm not sure if there's any real way to avoid that. Silver  seren C 20:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullying?
I am growing concerned about a current situation involving the behavior of another user, and wish to consult you before I approach that user. I am worried that this sort of thing may be indicative of an escalating pattern of threats, harassment, and intimidation against users with opinions contrary to his. This may need to ultimately lead to scrutiny by the community at large, although I wonder that I may be overreacting and that may be premature. What do you think? BOZ (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's concerning. As you can see above, that same user has been pretty aggressively advocating a POV here on my talk page, and seems to be taking it very personally when his interpretation of notability with respect to role playing game fictional elements is not endorsed by the community.  Having said that, I am absolutely never going to be intervening in any dispute about these matters as an administrator or an arbitrator, so there's nothing really I can do here except to agree that the conduct does seem to be bordering on battlefield conduct and not improving as things continue to not go his way.  I'd encourage you to start trying a positive approach to coaching the user, as I did above, rather than immediately seek a dispute resolution route. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the response was well handled, and like David, I agree that DR at this time may not be necessary but may be so in the future. What you suggest is more reasonable, so I will ponder how to approach that today. He does not seem to be listening so far to suggestions from his critics about modifying his approach, but hope springs eternal! ;) BOZ (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit my behavior toward user David Shepard was harsh and accept your criticism, but I was acting with good faith per WP:AFDFORMAT which does state that comments in AfD consistently not based on policy or not justified enough can be seen by some as disruptive, and does encourage users to settle the issue. As I apparently don't have all the diplomatic qualities required to do so, I will let BOZ handle this as he seems to know David Shepeard better than me, and I'm convinced he will act with equity and also remind the user of WP:AFDFORMAT. As for Jclemens's accusation of "agressivity", this comment, in which I'm accused of "plotting" and being "disruptive" for using the right that all users have to renominate articles after a reasonable period of time, sounded like intimidation to me. That may not have been Jclemens's intention, but the words used weren't the most diplomatic I've ever seen either. So I'm sure we can all admit our own mistakes and act in a reasonable way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, absent any real new reason for a re-nomination, yes, a "keep" nomination re-nominated for AfD for the exact same reason borders on WP:IDHT, especially a third one. It would be inappropriate to not point out to you that continuing to attempt to remove material that the community has judged worthy of inclusion is, at the very least, entirely unhelpful.  Prior users who have displayed poor attitudes towards consensus and aggressively sought to remove such material have been sanctioned by the community in the past, up to the point of being banned from Wikipedia.  I hope you don't follow in their footsteps, and to that end, I give you this advice: When the community tells you that you are wrong, you have the choice to listen, or to tell the community that it is wrong.  I recommend the former. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An addendum: users who have fervently and repeatedly sought to keep material at all costs have themselves been sanctioned by the community, up to and including bans, for that behavior as well. Thus, it's not so much about which side of a debate one is on, but rather the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's presomptuous to consider a few D&D fans as "community", especially given the numerous problems the last AfD had: closing administrator admitting to have taken it as head count and ignored deletion arguments, initial canvassing, and the fact that all the previous delete !voters were retired at the time, certainly don't speak in favor of an overwhelming consensus. A keep !voter was even on the point to change his recommendation to delete, so I'm not worried about having valid reasons to nominate. As far as content itself is concerned, contrary to you I've even done more research on the so-called sources and discovered that the founders of Bastion Press are all ex-WotC key employees (including former vice president) and that the books are not secondary but primary (as they are merely campain add-ons for D&D 3rd edition, as clearly written on the backcover), something to which you failed to reply last time. You mention consensus, but last time I checked, consensus is not head count, and so D&D fans can be as numerous as they want, if they fail to produce a convincing argument they won't keep the articles. There are serious problems to discuss about this article, and you don't have any right to prevent the community from doing so.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the ankheg closure, I asked before where ScottyWong admitted that he used a head count to determine consensus, and I don't remember you providing any evidence of this. BOZ (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the talk page of the article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal hypothesis is that the reason so many of the original delete !voters retired is because they were not committed to the Wikipedia culture of sharing information. Folks who hold WP:NIME viewpoints don't tend to last long, because they want to reshape Wikipedia, which tends to resist such individual efforts at reshaping.  A small number of other editors with approaches such as yours have been banned, and a few of the new editors holding such viewpoints have been shown to be socks of previously banned deletionists.  But at any rate "the sources are sufficient" is a policy-based argument, although one informed by the opinion of the editor holding it, and saying "the community got it wrong!" in the face of majority opposition is not a particularly compelling argument. Yes, head count isn't the be all and end all, but when the clear majority are saying one thing, and you are saying another... consensus is against you. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As a vaguely-related note, you might find this discussion worth following. BOZ (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delsorting
Okay if you find it more helpful I'll wikilink the article in the edit summary, although I did find your message a little patronising. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't intended to be patronising, apologies if it came across that way. How would you have preferred the request to have been phrased, so as to avoid the appearance of being patronizing? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have just asked me to link the article in my edit summary there was no need to explain square brackets. Anyway isn't a big deal. Happy editing. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Sorry about that, I just didn't want to fiddle with "nowiki"ing it out, since it always takes me a bit to get that to look right.  My shortcut, my fault. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in my encyclopedia
After reading your comments at the GloZell Green DRV, I've added a few new shortcuts to the essay. I'm also working on something in my sandbox that may fit into your essay or in an essay of its own. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Once it's been contributed to Wikipediaspace, it's there for anyone to improve. Those shortcuts didn't occur to me, and on first read through I'm thinking your sandbox composition may be making a subtly different point--that just because something is "too hard" to get completed doesn't mean we shouldn't even try--but I welcome your (and others') improvements.  Even though I started it, it's not just "my" essay. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, WP:OWN . I still have a habit of saying "your article/page/whatever" when addressing the primary contributor. However, what I wanted to say is that I just noticed the deletion review for List of ThunderClan cats and read your comments there. At first glance, this article looks like a "poster child" for WP:NIME or is it the "alternate view" you are taking on this? Like I've said several times, I think we should let the "fanboys" have their "cruft" as long as it's verifiable "cruft" (ie not based completely on fan speculation and/or OR). These are "low risk" articles and WP has bigger fish to fry. After looking at List of Warriors characters, Thor Dockweiler arguments wrt Article size, Content forking, and Splitting do make some sense so I have to wonder where he was during the original AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Prachursharma sock?
I think User:Pilsoto must be a sock of User:Prachursharma. See the recently created Jewish control of Hollywood. Note the referencing style and some of the source material, such as Quora (as compared to Sharia in the United States and the article you speedily deleted, Creating Religious affiliations of the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve of the United States). I could take it to SPI, but I thought I'd start with you directly. Lady of  Shalott  23:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I took it to SPI. See Sockpuppet investigations/Prachursharma. Lady  of  Shalott  23:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I was off the Internet yesterday. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Glozell Green
See Talk:GloZell Green. I missed the deletion discussion, but I think I've listed enough sources now to reinstate the article. Please comment there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Scottywong
Ping, you have replies. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Firefly articles
So are you going to add the sources you found, or are you going to hope they add themselves? Both articles were nommed 5 years ago and kept due to the supposed presence of sources, but I still found the articles in their current state — poorly sourced mounds of nothing but fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean the name-drops you found? Which of those sources is substantial? Most of them seem to be passing mentions to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've been overly testy on this matter. I get incredibly frustrated when someone makes an AFD, everyone in the AFD says "sources exist" and five years later, not a single thing has changed on the article. Furthermore, as I said, the first dozen or so sources I found all appeared to be tangential. I feel I shouldn't have to dig really, really deep if something truly is notable, but apparently sometimes I do. I'll just let these play out. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced you actually understand your responsibilities per WP:BEFORE. Sucky coverage of encyclopedic topics beats no coverage of those topics. Elitists who've insisted that "respectability" demands that work-in-progress be eliminated are anathema to the collegial, volunteer nature of the encyclopedia. If you think it appropriate that you should be able to threaten the encyclopedic coverage of a topic by proclaiming "This sucks! Improve it or delete it!" then you are acting like a bully, demanding that other volunteers do work that you will not lift a finger to do yourself.  Again, since you really don't seem to get why your behavior is so damaging, I really do think it's time for you to leave AfD's until you do. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I say "improve it" is because if you find sources, it's your burden to prove that they're reliable and/or add them to the article. Literally every time I see anyone say "Keep, I found sources", no one ever, EVER adds the damn things to the article, and 3 years later, it's still an unsourced pile of trivia. At least my so-called "bullying" gets stuff done around here in the form of the articles being improved — hardly detrimental in my opinion. It's not my refusal to lift a finger — it's constant frustration with the others who want it kept, but apparently don't want it kept that badly since they never come within a million miles of the article again.
 * "Sucky coverage beats no coverage" huh? So fansites and wikis, plus one book that mentions the subject for just one sentence, are enough to carry a whole article? I did do a WP:BEFORE on the Firefly articles, but that was all I found in the first several pages. I will grant that the Reaver article has been sufficiently sourced up, but I'm still on the fence about Browncoat — most of what's been dug up so far has only been passing mentions, and a few other editors are !voting for a merge instead.
 * That said, I think a topic ban of any length is too extreme. The so-called "drama" at ANI has always just amounted to circular discussions that fizzle out, without any proof that I've done anything detrimental. Again, at least shit is getting done. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How dare you?!
With respect to the Verifiability RfC, the view in question was about making our policies "immediately and unambiguously clear" not "understandable with further thought and / or research". It's not talking about an essay to be read after looking at the policy. It's talking about the policies. To proceed from the false premise that it was referring to understanding (eventually) instead of referring to being immediately and unambiguously clear, and then to describe a genuinely good-faith desire for our policies to be immediately and unambiguously clear as disingenuous and disability-baiting was an indefensible, uncivil, name-calling personal attack. That was behaviour unworthy of an admin, let alone an arb. And ironic in the light of the arbs' case on civility enforcement. Pesky (talk ) 07:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that I am being chastised as if it were a personal attack to believe and advocate that ASD editors are capable of reading and appropriately understanding our policies when supported by well-written essays. I'll apologize for anything else where you took offense when none was intended, but not for assuming competence from our ASD editors, many of whom have served long, tirelessly, and without any issues with respect to the WP:V wording. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll accept your apology for the offense, but I honestly can't see how calling a good-faith editor disingenuous and disability-baiting could possibly not be offensive. I don't assume incompetence from our ASD editors  I'm a high-functioning autistic myself.  But, really, don't you think that, as policy writers, we have a duty to word those policies in the most readily understandable way from the start?  Without having to rely on further explanations from elsewhere?  If we can accept that articles have standards such as GA and FA which should be aspired to for ease of understanding and readability, isn't it purely common sense to try and have our policies written to (at a minimum) GA standard?  A little extra thought in the way our policies are worded would save so much editor time and effort; why make things more unclear than they have to be?  It seems daft, to me.  I'm not only ASD myself, but I've spent decades teaching people of all  kinds, including ASD, and experience (personal, as an autie, and from teaching) has taught me that some ways are just much better than others.  And the ones which are much better for A-spectrum people are also better (or, at the very least, equally good) for neurotypicals.  It's a bit like fine tuning an engine.  If you can make that engine better, why on Earth would you choose not to?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't understand how I can call the presumption that ASD editors are unable to understand our policies, and need the wording changed to match their presumably feeble intellect, disability-baiting? Let me be clear: I consider the insinuation that our ASD editors are somehow less capable of reasoning through a written policy itself an insult to their intelligence.  I think the insinuation that every non-ASD editor immediately gets VnT is also wrong, because it's not designed to be immediately grasped by all: it's designed to simply and succinctly express a complex truth, which immediately prompts two more questions: "what is verifiability?" and "what is truth?", which every single editor not previously familiar with our policies, ASD or not, should ponder appropriately, resorting to explanatory essays as needed.  Bottom line? I don't believe in treating ASD editors as inferior; I believe everyone not understanding the policy nutshell summary will have their comprehension improved by grappling with its meaning. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, now I see the problem! I think you misunderstood me.  I've never said that ASD editors are "unable to understand" our policies (though I can see how you might have thought that).  I also never made or worked from any kind of presumption that ASD editors (or ESL, for that matter) had feeble intellect, so that's been misread, and I can see why you might get up in arms about it, having misread my intentions and thought processes.  I apologise if any way I worded anything caused confusion.  I never intended to insinuate it, either.  One difference in thought-processing which is pretty widely recognised is that A-spectrum people can be (and often are) very literal, so if words are used which can ambiguously or literally mean something other than intended, they're more likely to be mis-processed than if such idioms, words, phrases are either left out (replaced by something really clear), or immediately clarified.  What I'm really trying to aim for is (ultimately) reducing the amount of time that experienced editors have to spend explaining policies (often repeatedly), when all that time could be saved by having the original policy itself worded in a way which made all those subsequent explanations unnecessary.  What I see as a goal is just having the best possible explanation and clarification within the policies themselves.  Of course I appreciate that we're never going to get perfection, but I think that failing to aim for improvement because perfection is unattainable is counterproductive.  I don't believe in treating ASD editors as inferior, either (in fact, my talk page is a kinda unofficial Autie Central).  In many ways, we ASD editors are vastly superior.  There are just occasional glitch areas which can generally be ironed out or tweaked about.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, ya know, this is kind of a parallel situation? You misunderstood / misread / misinternalised something I said, and saw it as meaning something which was never meant at all.  That doesn't mean you have a feeble intellect, all it means is that you processed the stuff in a different way from what my intentions were.  It's nothing more complicated than a communications glitch.  Ultimately, it means that I failed to make it sufficiently clear and incapable-of-being-misunderstood in the first place.  The fault lies with me, not with you.  I should have ensured that there was no way in which what I said, my thoughts, my intentions, and my feelings, could be misconstrued.  It's a very, very close parallel.  What you understood was something which I never meant at all. We fell foul of a difference in thought-processing and language-processing.  It doesn't mean that either of us is feeble witted.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe here's a better kind of explanation (though I don't know if this will make it clear to you!) What we're talking about is the equivalent of one set of people running an internal Mac OS, and one set of people running Windoze.  They're both doing it through an Intel chip. The processing is superficially different, without saying that either is superior or inferior.  Now, the thing is that the "computers", regardless of what's on the surface, are actually both running machine code.  We need to write our policies in machine code.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your closing statement at Politics in the British Isles
I'm late to your statement so I've only commented now. I don't believe WP:GS/BI can be invoked in that manner, as this sanction was specifically created to prevent systematic addition/removal of the term over multiple articles. I believe the correct procedure for a moratorium on a page move (as per the Republic of Ireland article, for example) is to propose it at the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm actually surprised that no one took issue with this before now. As a completely uninvolved admin, my actions are based on the belief that 1) the motivation for the disagreements about the article are its use of the term "british isles", and thus fall under the umbrella of the community's sanctions, and 2) that trying to remove the name from the title repeatedly is functionally equivalent to edit warring.  I won't be the one enforcing the call I made, nor do I have any particular opposition to being overturned, but I do have two questions:
 * 1) What other intervention would be appropriate to stop the pattern of conflict over the article?
 * 2) If you're going to appeal my call, where would the right venue to overturn it be? I'm guessing WP:AN, rather than WP:DRV.  At any rate, you have my explicit permission to bring my enumerating the article as included under the general sanctions up for community review in an appropriate forum. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned with "scope creep" of WP:GS/BI than the article in question, to be honest. I've asked the question on the Talk page of WP:GS/BI - I'll see what happens.  But you've asked an excellent question.  First off, I would say that it's wrong to label *genuine* questions about an article title - including using DRV's, AFD's, etc, as disruptive.  They're part of the normal processes here.  And the process involved one deletion, one overturning of the deletion, and an appeal.  That is not disruptive - that's what the processes are for.  And it's a very disingenuous of you to say that the motivation for the disagreements was its use of the term "British Isles".  Both of the main objectors to the current title were admins (RA and BHG), and to the best of my knowledge, haven't been involved in the BI disruptions (and who'd probably take issue with your comment).  And both make the argument that it's a content fork.  In point of fact, the "name" issue was brought up by the editors arguing to keep the article at the current title.  Ironic or what.
 * The intervention that is appropriate, in my opinion, is to not assume that it is disruptive to do something in the future - until is becomes disruptive. Then do something.  Consensus can change, etc.  If something preventative is required, I'd open a straw poll on the Article Talk page to *ask* contributing editors for their views on a moratorium.  --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair enough place to ask, although I'm not sure you're really going to get as much in the way of a wider community review there as you might elsewhere, although I expect the number of uninformed comments by editors unfamiliar with the topic will be quite low. In my closing, I really looked at the number of participants, and the vehemence with which points were argued--with a quick eyeball words-to-participants ratio, it looked more like a discussion that would have been considered elsewhere, vs. one which would have ended naturally (and stayed ended) with a "no consensus to overturn" outcome.  It's entirely possible that I am wrong, that such a discussion would have not had any future flare-ups, and that my time on the arbitration committee has jaded my view and lowered expectations that divisive topics can simply work themselves out. At any rate, I look forward to the discussion, and have neither strong opinions on it nor will object if the community decides I've misapplied its sanction. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that in over a week, despite one additional comment immediately below this one, there has been zero additional discussion at that talk page. I suspect that a more general-purpose venue may be necessary in order to prompt sufficient discussion to get a feel for community consensus on this. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have concerns at citing GS. I think putting a kabosh on page-move-requests is fair and sensible (not least because it gives space for a consensus to develop over the article) but citing WP:GS/BI, I believe, (a) unfairly characterises one-side of the discussion; (b) does nothing (or is even counter productive) to encourage a "coming together" over the article; and (c) perpeturates a sense of conflict division over it.
 * Like HK, I'd also argue that citing of the "naming dispute" was something that characterised the keep camp. Definitely, it was not something I ever brought up (and I have a very high high "words-to-participants" ratio in the discussion!). In my view, the delete camp more substantially questioned the general suitability of the article.
 * Citing WP:GS/BI, thus, feeds into the perception of many in the keep camp that objections to the article were merely over its title. Consequently, I think your comments will make it more difficult for someone on the delete camp (such as myself) to strive to substantially improve the article without arousing suspicion that attempts to do so are motivated an attempt to spoil the article driven by an irrational dislike of its title. Accusations along those lines already existed on the talk page before you made your comments.
 * As a side comment, while you were only involved in looking at the DRV, the following comment is unbalanced IMO: "...this has been through DRV twice now, with a majority favoring retaining the article at its current title in each case." It is factually incorrect because in the first DRV a majority endorsed the original deletion (by my count anyway). It is imbalanced too because the article had also been through two rounds of AfD. On both of those occasions a majority favoured deleting the article (by my count) and on one occasion it had been deleted. -- RA (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

NLT block comment
I have to say I found this comment from you disconcerting: "if personally presented with the situation as it had devolved by the time of the block would have blocked the IP for trolling (normal, expiring, trolling block, NOT a CHILDPROTECT block) and counseled Itsmejudith to remove the accusations and contact authorities off-wiki if she believed it mandated by her local laws." While I get this is just your position, the fact that an Arb would suggest that a defamatory legal threat based solely on someone's opinion on a scientific question should be ignored and the individual being threatened should be blocked is worrisome as such a position would seem to be contrary to every element of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Being able to have a calm and rational discussion about child abuse is damned hard in pretty much any situation but it is never more important than when we are dealing with how to educate people about these issues.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trolling is the art of asking a not-completely-obviously-over-the-line question, and then gleefully watching as someone misinterprets it, blows up, and other people react to the overreaction. The good conduct of encyclopedia-building at Wikipedia depends on collegial discourse, and that means that admins have a pretty free hand, especially in child sexual abuse discussions, to block editors (additionally, subject only to Arbcom review in those specific types of discussions) who may, in fact, simply be clueless people acting like trolls by virtue of asking poorly phrased questions on incredibly sensitive topics.  If someone wants to feel free to have a discussion about whether there is any residual emotional damage to the infant victims of child rape or molestation... I don't want them here.  Calm and rational discussions of sensitive topics are all well and good... but unless tied directly into improving encyclopedic coverage, it's useless to Wikipedia's mission, and banning such editors has no downside for the encyclopedia.  You've heard it said that ArbCom doesn't make content decisions?  Well, in CHILDPROTECT areas, that's not true, because anyone who comes too close to advocating what is currently defined in the USA as child rape, child molestation, or similar topics, will be blocked and de facto banned, since ArbCom has never, to the best of my knowledge, overturned any such block.  Thoughtcrime?  I really don't care. But if that troll is removed from the equation, the overreaction is clearly not the root cause action for the uncivil exchange: as regrettable and against policy as it may be, and acknowledging that two wrongs don't make a right... the troll started it. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I to take it that means, if we look at reliable sources and they provide for that kind of discussion it is then legitimate?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In what context? In the specific discussion of article improvement, I would expect so.  In the general fora of the reference desk?  I don't see a good reason to try and deal with loaded and sensitive questions that skirt CHILDPROTECT there. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that actually be the place where someone looking to find such reliable sources would go for assistance?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So let's run through this: J. Random IP address shows up, without a background in the nuances of the psychological literature dealing with the aftermath of child sexual abuse, but wants to help "improve our neutrality" by playing down the negatives, so he goes to the reference desk to ask for help getting sources to ... Yeah, let's just stop right there. I'm not seeing any downside to proactively blocking such users as probable trolls, assuming their behavior doesn't qualify for CHILDPROTECT attention directly. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/The Good Witch's Family
I've been doing some work on The Good Witch's Family (a rip-off of Bewitched, right down to the evil female cousin). Excessive plot has been reduced... down from 1345 words to 515. Sources have been found and added and article is looking far better than when first nominated. While I feel a nomination so hurridly after being tagged for addressabe issues might have been a bit bitey in not giving a rank newb the reasonable chance to even begin addressing issues, so be it. As a Hallmark Channel family film series this will never have extensive coverage as does something like the Harry Potter (film series). But even my little work so far shows that issues are adressable. Per WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT, additional work can be done over time and through regular editing. Care to help out?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the AfD has been withdrawn. I don't have any strong feelings about a series of telemovies like that having 1 article vs. 4.  Thanks for your good work. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I responded there and this case is going to be declined, but after re-reading TDA's explanation of what went on, I think you shot yourself in the foot by being overreaching. Should you decide to try and present this case again, I would note that..
 * 1) It is your right to re-add statements by banned users to your own userpage, and in doing so you take responsibility for their contents.
 * 2) WP:BAN does not allow for the re-removal of banned user commentary that has been "adopted" by a user in good standing.
 * 3) Because there is no policy-based justification for Mathsci (or anyone else) to re-remove your adopted text from your userpage, Mathsci's doing so constituted battlefield behavior for which he had previously been reprimanded, and with his unclean hands, there was no justification for a block on you for reporting him for edit warring.
 * Mind you, if you really are just the same person as Occam/Ferahgo, you are the banned user. If you've just been taking advice on how to approach this from him, you've been doing yourself a disservice. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you leave out a "not"?
In your comment on proposed remedy 2.3 in the Perth case, before "a best practice"? I was about to fix it as an obvious typo, but figured that it's substantive enough to ask first. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a little more complex than that, but the short answer is "yes". Thanks, Jclemens-public (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reflection?
Even I can see that DC's comment there was severe WP:DICK territory, but was it really bad enough to sway your vote ? You're a reasonable dude (except when you go into ARS article-keeping mode ;)), so any chance of a step outside, count-to-ten moment here and a reconsideration? Tarc (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was carefully considering whether the conduct amounted to bannable, and was already leaning towards a ban. I'd noted his past behavior in the Cirt/Jayen case, and was reviewing what had already been documented about DC's attitude towards other editors.  So, when I went to look at the talk page, I was completely unimpressed with the flippant attitude towards the process.  While it would be innacurate to say that my vote was predicated only on his poor attitude as expressed during this case, it is fair to say that it's what sealed the deal as far as my appraisal of the situation was concerned. I can go back and clarify that, though, which if you're thinking I'm being too harsh, is almost certainly appropriate. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well it was worth a shot. This case just annoys me; Fae has done a fair bit of damage in the past and is being held appropriately accountable, but others just can't seem to avoid the ol' foot-shooting as it winds down. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When one side in a dispute has acted scrupulously well, and the other horribly badly, the cases usually don't make it to the arbitration committee: the community calls obvious cases like that, and they never make it to arbitration. The community has been much more assertive in assigning bans in clearcut cases, which means that the number of cases handled by ArbCom is WAY down from the peak of its youth, but the complexity of cases has increased correspondingly. Jclemens-public (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold
There's an unblock request at User talk:Worsnupd for a block you placed on 10 March 2011. The user did some vandalism, but claims to have grown up in the last year and a bit. My inclination is to try a WP:ROPE unblock, and keep an eye on the user fro a while with a view to quickly reblocking if necessary. However, you gave the block reason as "Abusing multiple accounts", and I would prefer to know what other accounts were involved before making a decision. I don't suppose you have much memory of the circumstances after 16 months, but if you can let me have any relevant information I will be grateful. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really do not. If I ever catch an identified sockmaster, I always tag the sock accounts appropriately.  In this case, it was probably just editing while logged out.  I have no objections at all to you giving him another go. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

note...
There is a request you may wish to comment on at RFPP: Artforum. (I notice that the relevant edits were not simply RD'd.) --j⚛e deckertalk 18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record...
Not having jumped in on Noetica's desysopping straw poll one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the "community" agrees with him.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm dealing with a bazillion things on-wiki, and the reference is just not clicking for me. Can you clarify? Jclemens (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, Perth remedies, right? Gotcha. Jclemens-public (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Couple threads that may be of interest
Hello, I hope you do not mind being contacted in this manner; the rules of engagement here are not clear, but I wanted to quickly draw your attention to a couple threads on the FLG 2 case. It would be encouraging to know that this material has been read and considered, since they were written to address questions that yourself and others raised on the PD page (specifically on the AGF issue). I don't want to behave in a manner that is viewed as breaching some unspoken rules of propriety, but it's not really clear what material was read and considered (in the interest of fairness, I would of course hope that whole evidence page has been digested).


 * On edit warring
 * on Colipon’s failure to AGF
 * on POV editing

Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Legend of Korra organization RfC
Hi, I'm contacting you becaused you expressed an opinion in Articles for deletion/The Legend of Korra (Book 2). Because it appears likely that the AfD will not end with deletion, I've set up a request for comment (RfC) on the talk page of the article about the series about how to organize the topic into subarticles. If you are interested, I'd appreciate it if you would add your opinion in that RfC. Regards,  Sandstein   06:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm a bit too busy to contribute this week. For anyone watching here, my general thoughts on notable fictional franchises are that 1) All former articles should end up being redirects, so no one ever finds a dead link externally and 2) All appropriate content should end up in articles of reasonable size which are logically organized. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Casting Crowns (album)/GA1
I fixed the two issues noted; I honestly thought there would be something I missed, particularly since I tried a different heading organization on this one. I spent a couple weeks working on it in my sandbox but I thought I would have missed something.
 * As for reception, I was surprised at just how positively it was received at the time of release - I knew it was well-received critically, but debut albums rarely get nearly unanimously positive reviews and Casting Crowns gets a lot of critique nowadays for their sound.  Toa   Nidhiki05  10:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * GA doesn't mean perfect, it means GOOD. :-) Seriously, one of the enemies of the GA process is scope creep. Things don't need to be impeccable or impossible to improve to be a GA: if you want to try for an FA without previous feedback... THAT would be an awesome feat. Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess so. I enjoy collaboration but there are very few editors in my primary topic area.
 * Even still, I thought the Casting Crowns article has FA potential but I wanted to do GA and peer review first, at least to work out any kinks in the article. Plus, I'm in WikiCup and I desperately need the GA points. I might not be able to nominate it for a while since an article I had been pushing for FA failed due to lack of discussion, so I'd have to wait to nominate this one even though it is in very, very good shape.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)