User talk:Jclemens/Archive 12

WP:AN
Hi, JC. You may be interested in this section, which I have just posted on WP:AN. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

Is any of the above actually of value to Wikipedia?
I have tried to figure out exactly why some people seem so horrendously aggrieved by Jclemens' asides - and can not see an ounce of value thereto. It appears Jclemens takes the "Five Pillars" more seriously than some others appear to do - but berating him for that stance seems curiously unimportant.

Frankly, if the "Five Pillars" are "optional" then likely the entire project should be made aware of their obsolescence. Otherwise, we should be forbearing of Jclemens' belief that they are still fundamental.

He may well be wrong in his application of the concept for any particular editor - but it is equally wrong to berate him for it. We, in fact, need more who will be willing to assert the bases of Wikipedia, rather than people who will assert that some people need not follow them. Once we make such "special cases" in Wikipedia, we might as well simply cross out the "pillars" entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I like this Collect, " but it is equally wrong to berate him for it." Arbs have opinions and convictions. Who ever said we had to agree with or even like their individual opinions or their convictions. Balance comes out of the fact that there are many arbs involved in the  judgement process, many opinions, many convictions.(olive (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Collect, please read and try to understand the article on dehumanization in order to come to grips with why people are upset with Jclemens. It's not enough to have a passion for justice, impersonal as its application may appear. One must also have a heart and a humane touch. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If one considers whether Malleus' editing behaviour shows "a heart and a humane touch", then one might understand why those people who have been informed by Malleus that they are a net negative (in much harsher terms than anything JClemens has said, and with much less reason), aren't "upset with Jclemens". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am here to tell you to stick to your ground. Keep your vote, to show the user that he cannot be uncivil. I admire you. Your comment may not have been correct, but you had a right to make it as the user has been making comments like that monthly. Peace! Pete Rodgersons (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noting Pete has been blocked as a sockpuppet.  Rcsprinter  (orate)  @ 19:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It comes down to what is incivil(what individuals consider is acceptable behaviour). In the view of some the comment 'not a wikipedian' was itself incivil. Therefore the idea about caring for the five pillars while at the same time breaking one is moot. I don't think the situation is unsolvable however as it's helping us come to an understanding of what being uncivil is. And for clarity it's not what is currently written in the policy and hence the current confusion. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 05:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it unusual that the defenders who time and time again been "this is the way my subculture acts" are then stating that other ways that cultures interact (ie Shunning)  are inappropriate within the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Good on you Sir
Seen some of the flak you've been taken for the way you've tried to uphold civility. Cant blame MFs friends as I was just as bad when you indeffed one of my own fave editors. But trying to be objective I don't think you at all deserved my attack, nor do you deserve the recent ones. In the case of MF and the other 3 individuals Ive seen you take a hard line on, Ive strongly disagreed with your decision, and I hope no one persists in trying to enact harsh sanctions on MF. But in the general case I fully support your stance on the matter. If admins and arbs don't act to restrain aggressive editors, they'll drive out the more peaceful and collegial types, making the project a much less pleasant and productive place to work. Thanks for having the courage to take a stand against aggressive editing, Im still glad I voted for you as an arb, and if you stand again will support without hesitation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just tell all of them to talk to the paw, Jclemens. Silver seren C 17:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"If admins and arbs don't act to restrain aggressive editors, they'll drive out the more peaceful and collegial types, making the project a much less pleasant and productive place to work." Unless this is a reference to the recent disgraceful actions by some of the admins and arbs, this is utter hogwash. I've only been angry enough to consider leaving this place twice, and both times it was related to the unreasonable decisions made by admins and arbs. They changed forever the way I view Wikipedia but I was gradually able to let go of my resentments--except for the contempt that I continue to hold for Jclemens. We all make mistakes, but mean spiritness hangs in the air for a long, long time. Gandydancer (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I don't think I can count on the fingers of both hands the editors who have left in response to BetaCommand/BetaCommand2/$\delta$'s hounding.  I don't think MF is as bad, but he interacts with more editors.  Beta would only have "scared away" editors who create or add images.
 * And, I know better than to try to "enforce" civility on any (even marginally) productive editors without going to ArbCom. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Blocked and barnstar'ed for the same thing, eh? I must say, I really wasn't expecting either, actually. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses
I am not in a position where I will be able to correspond extensively on this matter over the next ~30 hours or so, but I thought I owed it to everyone to try and put together a few general responses.
 * Yes, I should not have used the "are you now or have you ever been?" sort of construction, and I've modified it per MONGO's suggestion. While I've seen Malleus' behavior over time neglect basic civility, it was incorrect for me to assume that it's always been that way.
 * No, the statement was not a personal attack. The reactions alleging that I've been attempting to "unperson" Malleus are hyperbolic and simply not true.  Malleus does not conform to the fourth pillar.  One must conform to all five pillars to be a Wikipedian; that is the social conract.  While my earlier thoughts had been running along the lines of one must endorse all the pillars, that puts an emphasis on belief rather than conduct.
 * One can be banned after making many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. The various persons who are banned: Jack Merridew/Bre'r Rabbit/Gold Hat/etc. is not an unperson.  Betacommand is not an unperson.  Will Beback is not an unperson.  I would argue that my statement could be equally applied to any of them or other banned users for a similar reason: each of them failed to uphold the fourth pillar, although in a variety of ways and intensities, and was banned for that.  Malleus has the distinction of being the most prolific content creator being up for a ban in my memory.  The content he has created has is not in question, and he has had an admirable pattern of contribution to the encyclopedia... but that's not sufficient.  Much like Betacommand, Malleus has been shown repeatedly that his style of interaction is insufficient, and he has chosen to continue it. No one has proposed that Malleus' contributions be erased, that his name be stricken from anywhere or anything.  Bans don't do that, and the proposed ban would not have been any different than any other ban. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the fifth pillar: "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule." Nowhere is there a policy that says "One must conform to all five pillars to be a Wikipedian; that is the social contract." You're confusing your own personal opinion about justice with justice itself.  I don't know what is more disturbing here, your rhetoric of McCarthyism and unapologetic Orwellian attempt to dehumanize and unperson a respected contributor, or the fact that you have a legion of stormtroopers waiting to follow in your footsteps down a  path you've paved to hell.  There's a disturbance in the force here all right, and it ain't Malleus. Your non-apology apology isn't good enough. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that there is a time when the fifth pillar would ever, ever make the fourth pillar nonviable? Because that is an interpretation that is so far beyond the pale that it makes you have no right to criticize Jclemens for anything. Silver  seren C 22:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you still think that Malleus is not a Wikipedian, and now you throw in Betacommand, Will Beback and Jack Merridew. --Rschen7754 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does being indefinitely blocked mean you are not a member of Wikipedia anymore? The answer to that, I would think, is clearly yes. You are blocked. You are no longer a part of the community. Silver  seren C 22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "You are blocked. You are no longer a part of the community." You don't actually believe that horseshit do you? The main difference between a site-ban and an indef-block is that blocked users are still a part of the community. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merely a suggestion, but "member" is probably not the accurate term. None of us are "members" of Wikipedia. We're contributors to the Wikipedia project. - jc37 23:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is plainly a differing perspective. Clearly, Jclemens was not saying Malleus wasn't a contributor, he was saying that Malleus hasn't been a proper member for a while. Because a proper member is one that follows the rules. It's all very straightforward. Silver  seren C 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Member of what? - jc37 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Member of the Wikipedian community. Because, to be a member, you have to follow the rules that we've put into place. I mean, to violate the fourth pillar repeatedly over the course of years and, often, vigorously enough to lead to actual sanctions. I mean, it speaks for itself. Every group, every company, every...well, everything, has rules of involvement. If you break those rules, then you can't really be considered a member of that group. The others in the group certainly wouldn't consider you one. Silver  seren C 00:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, and there you have it: community : )
 * And that's the issue that's currently exploding here. While this is a project, and we all are merely contributors to it. At the same time, there is a wont to describe those contributors en masse as a community. And that dualism is being stretched in either direction atm. On one hand, you have those who say "how dare you say malleus is not a contributor", and on the other, those who say that his choice of actions invalidates him as a community member. Another way to put it? People are talking past each other.  - jc37 00:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's the perfect way to explain it, actually. Silver  seren C 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, so last comment for tonight :) To be clear about the "unperson" thing: I myself was not intending to suggest you deliberately were making Malleus "not of the body". However, that was the result of your comment. I was trying to highlight (see above my discussion with Bwilkins) the trouble with such an approach). I also raised questions about the entire case - is it really about fixing civility when we have many editors running around being rude to each other every day (i.e. is Malleus an example to hoist, and if so does Arbcom have a plan to make that example stick??). But those are all asides to the key issue, which you haven't addressed, which is that in a !vote on banning Malleus you poked at him with the "not a Wikipedian" stick, an uncivil comment in a paragraph you criticised him for civility issues. Can you at least see why, as an arb and therefore held to the very highest of standards, that was a major mistake? --Errant (chat!) 22:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, I think it's quite clear you don't understand why people are incensed. I am tremendously disappointed, but I think we should probably all go our separate ways now - if you truly don't understand the reasoning behind the irate reactions (and your answers give that impression) this'll create more drama. So...*shoos everyone else out*. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out by people before, the fourth pillar should be a zero tolerance rule. If it was as such, Malleus would have been properly indef-banned a long, long time ago. Or he would have shaped up. One or the other. And that's also true for a number of other editors. Silver  seren C 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons why "zero tolerance" will never be used to enforce the fourth pillar: 1) civility cannot be enforced evenly or objectively, and 2) "zero tolerance" approaches have no proven effectiveness and are disruptive to communities. It is best to take an evidence-based approach to dealing with problematic behavior, and the evidence quite clearly demonstrates that the community will not enforce civility.  At the end of the day, it is up to all of us to stand up for each and every other person, and to speak up when we see a problem.  If we are constantly protecting other people, then there will always be someone there to protect us. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Silver seren; zero tolerance requires firmly established limits on what is civil, and widespread enforcement. People are being rude and obnoxious to each other all the time here on Wikipedia - Malleus just happens to be someone who came to the notice of the community of the collective. I'd have more respect for your position if you were pursuing the wider editing community over uncivil behaviour with the same tenacity. The argument that this is about civility is annoying, because it is untrue. --Errant (chat!) 08:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There is historical revisionism about 5 Pillars going on here. 5P was (properly) labelled a user essay until about a year ago, when it somehow morphed without much discussion into some kind of holy writ. At least one of the 5 pillars (not the civility one, and not one relevant to this Malleus issue) was grounded in misrepresentation of then-existing policy and (IMHO) was in serious conflict with what I see as the project's interests and goals. If you're going to pick some fundamental principles to start from, try founding principles or wp:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which has been policy since the beginning). The "5 pillars" are just platitudes and should be restored to their status as an essay. (Update: I just now notice that someone has recently fixed the pillar that I didn't like, so the new version is much better. I'm relieved, but still, if the pillars change so easily then they're not really "pillars".  So the overall view stands). 67.119.3.105 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"One must conform to all five pillars to be a Wikipedian; that is the social conract.". Sorry, but none of us, aside from foundation members of course, are "under contract" on wikipedia, much less under "social contract". We're volunteers who contribute to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has never been about social interaction as it is on facebook and Twitter. Much of the website in fact is designed in a way which is antisocial and causes unnecessary drama. I don't believe in 5 pillars or any of the wiki philosophical stuff. We're an amateur encyclopedia, a content hosting website, that's it. Yes, we should build it with minimal drama and fuss with a good sense of purpose and try to be nice to fellow editors but it doesn't always work out like that..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive Edits
User Colin XX has been vandalizing several Wrestling-related articles by removing all links and content relating to the Fingerpoke of Doom. All of this user's edits have so far been the removing of content. 99.158.249.195 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If a talk page stalker hasn't helped you out already, I suggest that WP:AIV is a good place to take clearcut examples of vandalism. Note that I haven't evaluated the accuracy of your statement at all, so beware that if you complain about users making policy-based edits, WP:BOOMERANG may apply. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not "unconstructive", because it's not relevant in the context of say Georgia Dome or 1999 in American television. By the way, a similar editor by the name of User:Jayemd made similar edits to the IP. He was confirmed as a sockpuppeteer, along with his sock User:Modern Warfare Dude. Shortly after he/they was blocked, the IP appeared, making the same edits. Colin XX (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not wish this to turn into an edit war. But it seems that is what the IP wants. He has no WP:RS, and is now resorting to making personal comments on my talk page . I have no idea why this IP came to you in particular with this, but a)it is the IP who is making unsourced edits, b)the IP has made personal comments on my talk page. Colin XX (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Recusal
In case you don't see my comment at the current Arb discussion, I am asking you to recuse yourself from the Clarification Request and all Motions regarding Malleus, as you have demonstrated an inability to be objective in the case. While I appreciate you striking your offensive remarks about a fellow editor, the bias obviously exists. I have no objection to you moving your comments to the above sections, as Brad had done originally. I've also made note of this at the larger discusion taking place. It isn't personal, it is about equity and process and I sincerely hope you understand that this the proper thing to do, not just for fairness to Malleus, but as to ensure the community that no Arbitrator will continue to vote in a banning process after demonstrating a clear lack of objectivity. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I demur. "Recusal" is intended for clear conflicts of interest or prejudice, which have not been shown here. What we have is politicking to remove one voice from a committee which is not a court, but a collaborative system aimed at gaining a broad consensus on issues brought before it. And as such, "recusals" ought to be extraordinarily rare. Having opinions which are not congruent with those of people politicking against you is not grounds for "recusal." One might as well ask any editor to remove himself from any discussions at all on the same basis, for gosh sake! What has been shown is that you are human and have opinions in general about what Wikipedia is - and that you happen to be in a minority that still believes the "Five Pillars" actually mean something. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with one of my favourite Wikipedia community members - recusal would not be the correct thing to do. You're human.  You have a perspective.  You do and say what you do out of caring for the project as a whole. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is fine to disagree with me, I expect as much from a cross-section of the community. To accuse me of politicking, however, would be inaccurate and unsubstantiated.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dennis I have great respect for the admin work I've seen you do on Wikipedia. I think, though there is a jump in logic here and that is, that Jclemens position no matter how baldly stated and originally with out context comes out of a personal opinion on Malleus. Jclemens has shown over time a consistent desire to re vitalize the civility policy on Wikipedia, and his comment on Malleus is  wholly consistent with that position. Above all we have to have arbs that are honest, thoughtful, and forthright and to have Wikipedia's health as a priority . While I also did not agree with Jclemens equation on what a Wikipedian is,- its a philosophical position in my mind; I do believe that I can trust him to say what he honestly believes is right based on deep thinking. I respect that characteristic in him, even while I may  not always  agree with him. We have many arbs and its their joint vote that determines anything. We can expect  that  group vote to come out of a range of opinions.(olive (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC))
 * I respect your opinion Olive, I truly do, and I have no issue with Jclemens supporting the ban. I'm not an apologist for Malleus.  He and I get along fine, but I get along with most everyone.  There has been more than one incident where I've asked Malleus to back off a bit, even speaking out against some of his actions.  Malleus is no saint, although I don't think he is a pariah either.   I have a different opinion on the enforceability of civility, but I'm very tolerant of other opinions, and have a history of such.  What bothers me is the expression of a personal opinion outside the issue at hand and one of a more personal nature, during his duty as Arb.  If he doesn't believe that Malleus is an equal member of the community, that is his right to feel that way, but if he is charged with making a determination as to the status of Malleus, it seems obvious that this opinion, this strong emotional philosophy, is an impediment to unbiased and objective decision making, justifying recusal as being "involved".  There are a few people at Wikipedia whom I can't take administrative action on because I admit my personal feeling overwhelm by sense of good and fair judgement.  Any admin that has been here a while have editors like that.  In this case, Malleus just so happens to be that editor for Jclemens.  Unlike others, I am not asking him to step down, I'm not calling for his head on a plate, I'm simply asking him to step to the side for the purpose of reducing drama and even the appearance that there is a personal element involved.  I don't know Jclemens, and have had no personal dealings with him in the past.  This is why I'm saying it isn't political and it isn't personal, it is my opinion as a fellow administrator.  A number of admin and editors have already either retired or become inactive due to the comments of Jclemens.  I always choose to engage instead, and appeal to his sense of good faith, and good judgement.  It doesn't even require that Jclemens agree with my conclusions.  Ill worded or not, there comes a time when you realize that the best thing you can do for the community, the most honorable thing, is to step to the side on the one issue. I'm not asking Jclemens to fall on his own sword, I'm asking him to simply put the sword away and sit this one out.  If for no other reason that this is what would be best for the community. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally think that "sitting this one out" would be 180 degrees away from what we elected him for :-) ...we don't want no yellow-bellied Arbs! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't ask arbitrators to recuse themselves because they worded things strongly and I don't see why they would become involved for doing so. Others saw what was initially said, and found it disagreeable, and I understand that. But people have become hung up on the unfortunate choice of words rather than on the point that was being made; it wasn't a personal attack. If you wished to reduce drama, publicly announcing your intention to ask for Jclemens' recusal at WT:A/R has dashed that. This formal request merely adds to the drama; it certainly won't help to reduce it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect those that disagree, but my request still stands. As for my unusual announcement, normally I would completely agree with you Wolf but the amount of drama currently surrounding the situation is so high that I felt it necessary, and unlikely or impossible to make it worse.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Odd...I think Elen and Casliber should recuse...they are obviously seem sympathetic to Malleus as I have seen them post friendly comments at his usertalk numerous times. I actually feel pretty strongly about it, but I'm not there asking them to do such a thing. Jclemens made a statement that has since been adjusted by him. Can we agree that if any editor has decided that the rules don't apply to him (the pillars), then they have decided that they aren't members anymore? How can any entity perpetuate if rouge is fashionable. Why do we have to make special accommodations for anyone? What gives anyone the right to deliberately state and act against the policies that the rest of us are supposed to adhere to as much as possible?--MONGO 19:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking for the 8+ admin who have retired/gone on strike, I speak for myself only. Diluting my clear message with the rhetoric or opinions of others isn't an accurate representation of my concerns, which I've already explained. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean some admins that have routinely reverted blocks with neither discussion or the usual common courtesy to inform the blocking admin?...they should be desysopped. Once again though, since there has been this huge outcry and guilt trip from the peanut gallery about Malleus, the committee is beholdened to go with the outcry. I applaud Jclemens for standing his ground, regardless that his now adjusted comment is still deemed too harsh and misunderstood. You're fully entitled to your opinion, but I cannot support any effort to NOT ban a paroled and repeat offender that even now, today, calls others liars or idiot...absolutely preposterous.--MONGO 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mongo, substitute your name for that of Malleus. I for one would still take the same course because it is a matter of principle, not one that relates to whoever may be the subject of the request. In your seeming obsession to get rid of Malleus, you are missing the real point. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This charade about Jclemens being overly harsh is redirect from what the problem is...the problem is that we have an editor that has openly stated that he will not abide by our policies, and even after being warned, blocked, admonished and counselled, he continues to insult others with impunity. He thinks the rules don't apply to him...he is above them supposedly. I am glad to be part of the effort to try and reign in his excesses...for if it isn't done now (and it won't be) we're all going to be right back here, again.--MONGO 22:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a charade in my case, and it would seem not to be in the case of Dennis Brown if I have read his above comments correctly. That you think it is could be construed as ABF. I, for one, do not have the ruthlessness/determination/whatever to apply Machiavellian strategies and I'd be grateful if you would bear that in mind in future. In fact, you may be able to turn it to your advantage! I am not one of those who turns up at every dramafest involving Malleus or indeed you, and I rather think this is only the second time that I've been involved in an ArbCom discussion. That doesn't stop me from recognising the obvious, ie: Jclemens overstepped the mark and some of the other arbs were way too hasty. Hence the shambles that we have witnessed. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can respect your position and I can also respect the position of Dennis Brown and Bishonen (who I consider my best friend on this website). All I am asking is if its possible for all of those angered by Jclemens comment, that they think about the things that give any collaborative entity cohesion. That if we have an editor that refuses to provide any reassurances that they will at least try to abide by a relatively simple rule...no personal attacks...then they have self renounced their membership in that entity. I know that is not the way Jclemens worded it and it may still not be the way he would, but more softly put, I believe that is what he meant.MONGO 11:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: That if we have an editor that refuses to provide any reassurances that they will at least try to abide by a relatively simple rule...no personal attacks...then they have self renounced their membership in that entity. - in an article, such a deduction would be considered synthesis and forbidden - and it's synthesis here too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So the rules don't apply to him? He seems to have determined that himself...and that is apparently endorsed by a large segment of those voicing an opinion on the matter.MONGO 15:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Non sequitur (logic), and please do not read what people have not written. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't very logical for you to violate our our blocking policy...where you performed an involved unblock with an already arbcom sanctioned editor with no consultation with the blocking admin or discussion beforehand with the community.MONGO 19:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And that in no way supports your "...then they have self renounced their membership in that entity" argument either. If you have nothing further to say that is relevant to that, then I must bid you goodbye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure...we can examine what I or Jclemens said, but it might also be productive to discuss what you did.MONGO 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What BsZ did has already been examined, at ANI and with your involvement. So, it's just what you said that is at issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And frankly, MONGO, I don't think I'm interested in discussing anything further with you when all you want to do is fight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said..."That if we have an editor that refuses to provide any reassurances that they will at least try to abide by a relatively simple rule...no personal attacks...then they have self renounced their membership in that entity"...more than happy to stand my ground on that. It seem pretty straightforward to me. One arb has given his "final, final" reprieve...how many does Malleus deserve?--MONGO 23:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus doesn't even like it when an admin doesn't block him...don't dare challenge Malleus...Here's Malleus response after the admin makes one comment to him...later that day...the John and Malleus tag-team show up......isn't someone going to call me a liar...I mean, I must have made this threads up by magic...and they are from almost a year ago. I tell you some of us are sick to death of this stuff, because it has been dragging on for YEARS!--MONGO 23:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing that worries me, MONGO, is that you've not really held yourself back from attacking people during this incident. Of the two people I gave stern warnings to the other day you are the one still bashing the stick (don't get me wrong, it takes two to tango, but you seem to be tangoing with a lot of people). Otherwise concerning is your stated devotion to removing Malleus, the sort of attitude which worries me. There are a few editors on here I find frustrating, annoying and a pain in the arse - but I've not pursued them (or tried to fix the messes I still see them making) because it is simply not worth it. I wonder if, perhaps, this is something you could consider. It's worth considering that over the last few days you don't appear to have done much except pursue this issue. On the other hand your sworn opponent seems to have spent quite a lot of his time improving article content. I've got a lot of respect for the article work you have done, MONGO, and I'd really love to see you return to it with a vengeance rather than waste yourself bickering with other editors. And as to the others in this thread; really? What are you achieving here? --Errant (chat!) 01:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would explain it to you, but I know you're not probably able to grasp what is really going on here. Your post above indicates you're clueless about it, sorry to insult, but seriously, I don't think you would understand.--MONGO 02:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only person I can see that violated our blocking policy is Schultz; not only does WP:BLOCK say "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review." (neither of which he did), but he clearly hadn't read Civility either. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then if you don't think Schultz deserved some notification and you don't think Boing should have at least opened a discussion at AN for some feedback then not only do you not understand the blocking policy, but you don't understand common courtesy. This is all just a song and dance anyway...Malleus cannot control himself and will end up indeffed sooner or later....I bet on the former.--MONGO 23:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Malleus cannot control himself". That assertion implies he tries for a certain control, and then fails. (That clearly isn't true. So what in the world are you talking about?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Oh. "... from the peanut gallery". (Is that like "puling masses"?! Because it is condescending! [Which is uncivil, right?]) Your statements are fraught with contradictions, MANGO.

Watch this space...
No, I'm not hiding, not on Wikibreak, nothing of the sort. I have been at work, at one job or another, for 34 of the last 36 hours, and don't always get a chance to participate in Wikipedia in these turns of my schedule. What you will see from me sometime here are reactions to the above statements, pro and con, as well as some anonymized excerpts from emails that have been sent to me privately about this situation. You'll forgive me if I take time to choose my words particularly carefully, I trust. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that in future cases you maybe avoid taking them if you can't guarantee any kind of availability in the ensuing days? ArbCom has 15 people for a reason. Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Arbs are volunteers too, and have real lives and jobs to support themselves in real life. Please be aware of the amount of time this arb has spent on Wikipedia. Sheesh. Getting fed up ness setting in.(olive (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC))
 * I was hoping that Ironholds was joking and I had just missed the punchline. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh. No, I know that arbs have volunteers and real lives and jobs to support themselves in real life. My point is more "if there's going to be a period of expected unavailability of several days length, it might be best to avoid taking up time-sensitive volunteer activities when that's coming up". My article-writing is similarly a volunteer activity, which is why I try not to schedule FACs or whatnot if I know I'm going to be out of town while they're going on. It's perfectly acceptable to recuse or hold your hands up and step back from arbcom for a while if you're going to be afk: I'm not sure what the fuss is about my comment. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the nature of his work, but not every job has forewarning, so I will assume this wasn't intentional. I have other concerns, and I'm disappointed that he hasn't addressed them as of yet, but I can't fault a man for taking care of real world obligations, which isn't like punching a 9 to 5 clock for many people.  In other words, I don't have enough information to fault him for the absence at this time.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I knew my schedule, I just didn't anticipate that the furor would be as intense or long-lasting. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mailbag
All these were emailed to me privately. It's not my intent to identify the editors, since they each are perfectly capable of saying things on-wiki should they desire to do so. I'm presenting these as a representative sample of the input that is informing my later responses. All emphasis in originals, all elipses mine:
 * “I just wanted to say that while you and I don't always agree, I respect you and I think this whole matter is being more overblown than anything I can think of in recent months. If we have an article about the phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill", I hope someone links to the discussion as an example. You expressed an opinion that really wasn't an attack. This whole reaction is absurb and I'm sorry you are being subjected to it.”

[I have redacted your excerpts per WP:EMAILABUSE as you did not indicate you had permission to post them. If you do have such permission, you may restore. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)]
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is disappointing to see. You're not only publishing private communication, but also cheerleading yourself. I don't think you can rightfully focus this issue away from key questions about your judgement over this entire issue. Malleus is at the centre of a problem, and it may be that in the end the better outcome for Wikipedia content (not the editors, we are immaterial) will be to ban him (and just to soapbox for a moment, to justify that action we would have to demonstrate, I feel, that he regularly created a poisonous attitude that damaged content and drove editors away to a significant degree more than any other average joe editor). However, your comments drill down to one of our central issues, which only barely touches Malleus' actions: that of civility. You cast Malleus as someone so incapable of civility they were no longer a Wikipedian. Such a hard line is not a problem (although I disagree it is the right approach). What is the problem is the inconsistency in your criticism of one individual and lack of criticism of others exhibiting equally nasty behaviour. What the comments on this page, and your email, highlight is that there are cliques involved here - ones that boil down for "for and against" a single editor. I find that both distasteful and worrying, as it fails to consider the deep social issues at the root of our community. Do you have any comment on them? Or are you simple siding against an individual? I don't agree with most of the "clique" cheerleading on this page - both attacking you (I do respect your hardline stance) or supporting you - but I do question whether you are approaching this issue with a broad and objective viewpoint. If we must talk about "sides", there are many sides requiring sanctions or trouting over this matter. No? --Errant (chat!) 01:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not attributed...so no harm really. You won't believe me but I got emails from people on both sides of "the pond" saying go MONGO. I try to not be overzealous, but if you're newer to the underlying issues at stake here, you need to get educated about them. However, based on what you've already stated, I am not convinced you're interested or care.--MONGO 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * MONGO, I've been plugging away at the underlying issue for the better part of six months. If you have an alternative perspective then please do provide it! --Errant (chat!) 08:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What self-aggrandizing tripe. Many editors have expressed serious concerns about your behavior, and you respond with anonymous and dubious testimonials - a tactic straight out of cheap late-night infomercials. Resign immediately. Skinwalker (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that sort of tone is helpful to discussion. The amount of people here to throw rocks at each other is... disappointing in a case involving civility --Errant (chat!) 02:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * since you have some issue with so-called anonymous testimonials, I'll allieviate some of your concern. That first quote was mine. i sent it via email because I didn't want to deal with the MF mafiia. I don't mind that it was shared and it was accurately presented. I will not, however, get drawn into some pointless exchange with you, so save your breath. The only reason I bothered here is because you seemed to imply there was something dishonest being presented.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is very clearly something dishonest going on here. Shall I post some of the emails I've received about Jclemens, MONGO et al? Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently I missed the "clear" dishonesty when I was confirming that my email was presented completely accurately. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the point probably is that it is extremely likely that Jclemens has also received critical emails but they have chosen not to select any of those. I can't read the minds of other people, obviously, but this seems fairly logical. As for posting the excerpts as they did, well, I think that an arb should know better than to do that. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. The notion that Jclemens has received only supportive emails stretches credibility to breaking point. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, pardon me for missing it. I missed where he said those were the only kind of emails he was getting. Could you please post a diff to that quote? Thanks in advance for your assistance.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh look. Malleus is playing the dishonesty card again! I must say I'm shocked. Of course, with a NPA upholder like Floq around, I'm sure Malleus will be dealt with soon. Automatic  Strikeout  14:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, someone who spots an opportunity to have a go at an editor they don't like has offered an opinion on something they have no knowledge of, in this case honesty. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Because I disagree with you, I am devoid of honesty. Don't think so (and that's a personal attack). I never wanted to get so heavily involved in this fiasco, but I'm tired of watching your posse rip the website apart. Automatic  Strikeout  14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case it would be more productive for you to consider the wisdom of your attempts to further inflame the situation by pursuing your vendetta in this manner, or indeed at all. Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I come across as trying to inflame the situation. That is not my intent. My intent is to make it clear that I am disgusted by what is going on and the way a large portion of this community is behaving. And I know you don't want to hear this, but comments like yours above when you said I had no knowledge of honesty are the main reason for this colossal mess. Automatic  Strikeout  14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't presume to know anything at all about me, or what I might or might not want to hear. If it's not your intention to further inflame this situation then I suggest that try not to further inflame the situation by shutting up now that you've had your say. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will decide when to shut up and I will decide when I have had my say, thank you. If you don't want me to make a scene out of this, I suggest that you don't make anymore personal attacks against me. If you can respect that reasonable request, I will let the conversation rest. Automatic  Strikeout  16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Arb isn't about doing what it popular according to who sends the most email, it is about doing what is right. Actually, J.C. Watts said it best: "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking." Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, those were excerpts from the only emails sent to me individually on the topic, although additional mail of similar character has arrived since I posted those excerpts (note: not emails, excerpts). There have been discussions on Arbcom-L which are entirely different in character from that reassurances that different Wikipedians have given me, but in the main, people who decided to berate me for my statement seem to have universally chosen to do so on-Wiki.  Now, as far as the email excerpts go, I don't see how WP:EMAILABUSE's prohibition about posting entire emails applies to selected quotes: we allow direct quotes from copyrighted works in articles, so I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why I am somehow prohibited from posting such excerpts on my own talk page.  Regardless, the amount of vitriol and churn gathered by posting authentic representations of what various community members have said to me is quite concerning, but not surprising. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it help to give you a clue if I were to post extracts from some of the emails I've received condemning you? Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would urge caution until someone with more copyright-fu clarifies whether that's even permissible. If it is, then I don't see any reason why you couldn't post them to your own talk page. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was merely asking a rhetorical question in an attempt to give you some insight into why what you did was wrong. I had no intention of acting like a clot and posting bits of emails from unattributed others who had not given their permission for such extracts to be published. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens - this coming from someone who can count on her fingers (in other words 10 or less) the number of Wikipedians I've corresponded with (and a huge percentage of that to do with sharing pdf files for sourcing the encyclopedia): it goes to an issue of ethics and privacy. People use mail for reasons of privacy (which I've done in a very few instances during my time as a Wikipedian) and don't expect to see it published without consent. FWIW, I sent Malleus a source many years ago; that's the extent of my off-wiki correspondence with him. Wikipedia is by nature transparent and these conversations should take place on talk pages. When people send mail it's for conversations they don't want to be made public - whatever the circumstances. Furthermore, posting mail to your page but urging Malleus caution is yet another double standard. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I urged caution for Malleus specifically because someone has seen fit to remove my posting on my talk page citing copyright concern. Can you provide guidance on that bit?  I get that you have a personal opinion about the appropriateness, but I'm asking about copyright, which is a very different question. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I apologize. Have a look at Email privacy. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apology gladly accepted. As far as that article goes, that deals with unauthorized disclosure.  For all of those emails, I was not only an authorized recipient, I was the only authorized recipient.  (My personal take on email has always been that there is an implied license to forward any email given to the authorized recipients, because every email program I know has a "forward" function, but that isn't even an issue in this case.)  Uploading to a site licensed like ours did not seem to be an issue to me because I was only quoting bits of the messages, with the intent to comment on them tonight, which would seem to me to fall under fair use. I get the bit about not posting entire emails, and knew it already, but am seriously questioning whether my interpretation is off, or whether someone else overreacted to a perceived violation that didn't, in fact, exist. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I really wish the email page did a better job of explaining the issue, but I'll try here: quotes in articles are considered to be fair use because a) they are attributed to their authors, b) there is generally some kind of commentary on the quotes, and c) they are generally short in comparison to the work as a whole. I can't speak to whether the last of these conditions was satisfied in this case, not having seen the full emails, but the first was not, and the second was not at the time (though you say that you intended to do this). Emails are generally considered copyrighted unless explicitly released (see for example or ; some argue that even privately forwarding emails can constitute copyright infringement. It has to my knowledge been a generally accepted principle that posting emails or email excerpts on-wiki without permission from the author(s) is a Bad Thing. (There is the additional complication of whether people emailing you had an expectation of privacy, which would further argue against posting but is not as strong in the case of unattributed text.) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding: the concept of email copyright has been confirmed by Arbcom on at least one occasion that I could find (Requests_for_arbitration/Durova), and discussed many times at ANI (example). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and that ArbCom decision, from quite some time ago, references copyrights, which I believe I have adequately addressed. Legal scholars can argue anything--in fact, that's what they get paid to do--but I have yet to see any case law where such has been established.  The Kansas Law Review article, in fact, makes a primarily constitutional argument--the copyright law can't supersede the common law copyright, because privacy has no utility and the constitution limits copyright to economically useful works.  Of the other two links,y our first link is inaccessible to me (maybe the google.ca?), but the second, especially including the "licenses implied by circumstances" is certainly not hostile to my position.  I'm still not convinced that there's a compelling copyright interest in suppressing email fragments that I quoted on my own talk page.  The N of 1 permissions that were offered up in my defense--and I deeply am sorrowed that Niteshift36 felt compelled to self-identify to defend my quoting of his email--would seem pretty indicative.  The alternative would be that in order to quote a private email, the author would have to self-identify in order to give permission for any excerpt to be published.  Forgive me if I find that entirely unintuitive. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're claiming fair use; fair use generally includes commentary (which wasn't originally included, though I respect that you intended to add it later), and attribution (which is impossible if you want to maintain anonymity). If you stated that you obtained permission privately to excerpt the emails, that would probably suffice for "permission" assuming none of the people quoted complained. AFAICT from what you've said, though, you didn't ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, to say the least. The majority opinion of the community is that your comments were inappropriate. All the arbitrators who have opined on your comments have quickly run far away from them. Prominent members of the committee say you should recuse or even resign, including a former arbitrator. Editors and admins have gone on strike because you are still on the committee. ArbCom has kept quiet about your block, at least officially, and has not made any statement saying that it was inappropriate (I think it was suboptimal, but that's another discussion). And yet you refuse to back down and seemingly have dug yourself into an even deeper hole with the emails. What startles me is that you even want to run again in a month. Your comments have made the Signpost and a lot of people know of them by now. No voter guide writer in their right mind will recommend you after this (and three of them are represented on the no confidence list, including myself). Frankly, this seems to be turning into a case of WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 01:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, are you confused about? I said what I did, I redacted it in part.  Everyone is responsible for their own reactions to my statement, some of which have understood the spirit in which it was made, and many others which have not.  The fact that I've been very circumspect in my follow-up comments in the face of such a tumultuous reaction is not accidental. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why there is such a big divide between what you believe about the incident and what the community believes. --Rschen7754 02:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What do I believe about the incident? I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing; you haven't responded to a lot of the accusations. But what I do know is that you've been defending your statement ever since, haven't admitted that it was poorly phrased, haven't apologized, and have shown indications that you intend to run for ArbCom this year. I think that's pretty telling. --Rschen7754 02:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And this deals with my beliefs how? I agree that I haven't responded to everything--I'm being intentionally very careful about how I say things--but not responding does not indicate my beliefs in any meaningful way. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone's been getting the vibe that you believe everything you did was right, especially by your indications of rerunning for ArbCom. If your views have changed since then, you haven't indicated so. --Rschen7754 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Everyone's been getting the vibe that you ..." In essence, you have acknowledged that your initial statement was incorrect and was probably meant to mean: "there is a big divide between what some of the community believes and what they think you believe". Is that a fair summary? If so, "you believe everything you did was right" is clearly false since a part of the initial statement was redacted soon after. Being circumspect and limited with replies is a good idea considering the circumstances. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(od) No. If Jclemens had been more forthright in dispelling any misconception that the community has, we wouldn't be in this mess. Even if he took some time now to draft a statement, sent it to someone else to review it, and posted it, and it didn't confirm the worst that the community believes about him, it would go a long way. But with the limited evidence we have that all points to the accusations that have been made, that is what we have to believe. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Rschen7754 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, there are thousands of editors on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why a few think they can bully an arb into not running. And oddly, many comments on this page are offensive, bullying and uncivil. Its one thing to make a point and to disagree with another editor even an arb, another to continue to hammer with one's opinion. I will probably regret commenting here but this page and the whole issue is beyond the pale.(olive (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC))

Policy comment
In a much more public place, ANI, it was recently concluded that there is no email privacy on Wikipedia. As with all other "policy" on Wikipedia, it's really just the whim of the participants. WP:EMAILABUSE is not a policy page. Attempts to pass such a policy actually failed, as indicated in the ANI discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and our esteemed FA writers should be familiar with fair use. Brief quotes are permitted. And, yes, fair use applies to email as well  For example, Diebold tried to sue people for disclosing emails from them, and failed. The court accepted fair use as a defense:  "because there was no commercial harm and no diminishment of value of the works." We even have an article on OPG v. Diebold. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair use can apply to email. However, the four-point criteria for fair use were not met in this case. If you'd prefer to go only by written Wikipedia rules, "In all cases, a citation is required...Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited...If material does have a copyright, it may only be copied or distributed under a license (permission) from the copyright holder, or under the doctrine of fair use" (WP:NFC). I am aware of the disagreement surrounding email privacy; in the absence of clear policy on the matter, these ethical issues cannot easily be systematically addressed, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. (As an aside: clarifying what our policies are wrt to email would be a really good thing). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fat chance of that after Private correspondence and Correspondence off-wiki. For some stuff there's just perennial "no consensus", like uhm, what WP:Civility means and how it should be enforced, even though we have page with a green banner on it for that one (aka a policy). :/ Tijfo098 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And which of the four criteria was not met by Jclemens' posting? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First, and probably third. The proposals you link to mostly deal with privacy concerns, which are IMO covered somewhat haphazardly by existing policies, but my comment was more in terms of the copyright issue and/or precedent on-wiki and/or netiquette (which generally holds that posting email without permission is just plain rude, no matter the legal issues involved). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

New section
My 2cents: You surely brought identity politics to a whole new level on Wikipedia. That in itself deserved a block for WP:DE. I expect WP:Who is a Wikipedian? to follow shortly (hint: Who is a Jew?) Or perhaps it should be a question to be asked of all ArbCom candidates in elections from now on; perhaps even at WP:RfA from time to time, for a good laughter. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The closest precedent that comes to my mind is when ArbCom (through User:Kirill, IIRC) narrowly defined "professional" to mean "civil", and consequently called people who where not always civil "unprofessional" (or perhaps his logic was reversed, I don't recall exactly); I vaguely recall that someone quit Wikipedia over that "unprofessional" label handed down from ArbCom, but I don't remember exactly who it was. Anyway, with your contribution we now have the equation: "civil Wikipedian" = "professional Wikipedian" = "Wikipedian" and its complement class "uncivil dude[tte]" = "unprofessional dude[tte]" = "non-Wikipedian". It would have been wiser, linguistically at least, for you to use "un-wikipedian" as an adjective. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of User:Hans Adler, a really excellent editor who was experiencing burnout over many things and acted unwisely in a few instances. The arb finding was sort of the last straw.  It's really unfortunate that he left, though even without the arb finding, something else might have done it.  67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Identity politics is an interesting way to put it. My take is simply that if anyone has decided they have the right to routinely ignore the policies that all of us are asked to abide by, then they have self elected to NOT be a Wikipedian. By ignoring our policies, anyone doing so has decided they must be too good for the website and its mission. Those deciding on their own that the policies are not applicable to them are arrogant.MONGO 11:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach, if it wasn't self-evident from the above, is reification to first order logic. Which is really a bad idea for fuzzy social concepts. How often does someone have to swear before s/he is considered a non-wikipedian? Or how many topic-bans (or blocks) does it take for the same label to apply? It's pretty much like saying that (for instance) a felon is automatically a non-citizen (or even non-human). Clearly offensive. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Preposterous...companies, organizations, clubs and Wikipedia have let people go, revoked memberships and banned editors. Some us feel that in Malleus case he has had plenty of opportunities to shape up...if you feel otherwise that's up to you.MONGO 13:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was talking about certain labels. I never said we should not ban editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to start a thread, I simply wanted to apologise and clarify that contains a mistype. I intended to write "JClemens stupid ... remark" but, in an unintentional hypallage, I got the order wrong and called you stupid. Maybe not much consultation, but apologies anyway. I don't really want to redact, since the close is under close scrutiny now.--Scott Mac 17:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, someone took you to DRV already. Consensus and all that... Tijfo098 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Scott Mac, I read that, and had already AGF'ed the words into what you've confirmed is the right order by the time I'd finished reading your post. No offense taken, but the apology is welcome and accepted nonetheless. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Even as a scoffer at the so-called "community", I thought the "Malleus is not a community member" comment was completely ill-advised; but since you've stricken it, I'm reasonably satisfied and I don't see more hassle about it as worthwhile. The post about the emails you've received is pretty lame though. It's familiar enough that there is a song about it. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a more pragmatic definition I found : "being a Wikipedian = winning at Internet posting". Tijfo098 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your negative opinion towards Wikipedia
So this image reflects your opinion of the encyclopedia? And you insult people as non-Wikipedians who contribute the useful stuff, of which there is actually far more than your own negative perception of Wikipedia implies? Just wow. You're never going to be re-elected, you know that, right? Never gonna happen. Might as well spare yourself the ordeal. Just pointing out the obvious. --78.35.243.237 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow....now even a clear joke is being used as "evidence". SMH. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow indeed. Jclemens and dozens of others have this image on their user/talk pages for years... And for good reason. The IP editor should try reading personal identity or nonperson, to name just articles I stumbled upon today. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only error on that graphic now is that we get less and less about Bush, and more birther crap about Obama. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That picture has been around forever and is not a problem. Jclemens has done wise things and stupid things just like anyone else, but that particular one is a yawner.  67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the IP does make a good point: that graphic is quite dated. I think I put it on my talk page something like four years ago, when someone kindly toned down the vulgar (-> "freaking") language in what I found an otherwise entirely appropriate caricature.  The graphic doesn't belie betray a negative attitude about Wikipedia, but an enthusiasm to contributing despite its well-known limitations. But yeah, in Internet years, it's the equivalent of goldenrod and avocado green appliances. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought of it as a Kurt Weber-ism though it apparently originated elsewhere. And ZOMG he is (sort of) back!  This might even get interesting.  67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Belie - means contradict. So you've written "The graphic doesn't contradict a negative attitude - " . 92.13.94.40 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, that ended up being a triple negative. I've amended it beilie -> betray, which is what I was meaning to say, I think, although "depict" would probably have worked just as well. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of socking
I thought you should know of this as well. And note: I'm taking this very seriously, and am looking over what my next options should be. - jc37 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * I'm... well, mystified. I've always and only ever contributed as me or jclemens-public, save the occasional accidental edit while logged out.  I have plenty of history of losing debates, editing controversial articles, and attracting the ire of just about everyone sooner or later... so if I was socking as you, or anyone else, I've done a remarkably poor job of it. Personally, I would ignore it until and unless someone actually files an SPI, since self-exonerative SPIs are generally not accepted and I see no reason why this would be any different. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jc37, keep your hair on. [] Writegeist (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So much for that. My apologies for troubling you with this nonsense, Jclemens. - jc37 02:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted but unnecessary. I appreciate the notification, and am glad to hear that it was all a simple misunderstanding. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I would prefer to tell you this by email, but I have never created an account so I do not have the email-user function. I think your strong principled stand on the matter of civility/professionalism/kindness is important and necessary for maintaining a humane environment. I do not know whether most people who edit this encyclopedia will agree with you, but I can say that most people in general society would surely agree. This is obviously not life/death or good/evil matter, but keeping things nice and pleasant is important. Thank you for standing up for what is right. I have now created an account and am inserting my name. Jeff Kilmar 04:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I gladly second the e/motion.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

IP
Was surprised to see 113.21.40.134 being blocked pop up on my watchlist.

I don't even recall when I added it.

But in a quick look over the contribs, guessing it's asgardian? - jc37 03:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a difference of opinion over whether tying long-term abusers to their underlying IP addresses is a good idea per the WMF privacy policy, even in the case of DUCK blocks, so I will officially have no comment. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I spose I'll just duck out of here for now then... - jc37 03:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Mail
Go  Phightins  !  00:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is central
Do you find this offensive, or otherwise undesirable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My prior comments at stand. Jclemens (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request of 122.248.156.9
Hello Jclemens. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Specifically what I am looking for is how it was determined they were a sock as it is not at all obvious. If there are WP:BEANS involved please feel free to email me. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was an email request to me, part of the same as covered in the "IP" thread three above this. It should be a 3 month anon-only block that will not affect registered users.  If I screwed that up, let me know, or fix it with my blessing if you're inclined to do so.  Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think I get what you are saying and have declined the request. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
Hi there,

I just took a look at the candidates page for the upcoming ArbCom elections, and was disappointed to see you're not on it. Am I right in thinking you're standing down and not running again for ArbCom? That seems to be the case with most of the current arbitrators - if I read the page correctly, only Newyorkbrad and David Fuchs are running again. And I can understand why, given what a stressful position it must be, and all the hatred you receive as a result. But your departure strikes me as particularly regrettable, given the circumstances and that you've only been there one year - it looks like you've been hounded out by the mob. For what it's worth, I hope you know that there are many of us who think you're one of the best guys on the Committee, and that ArbCom needs more like you. I believe if you ran again, you would be re-elected. Nominations close on the 20th, so there's still time to reconsider. Thanks for reading, and if you won't reconsider, thanks for your service to the community. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A slight correction--I've been elected twice to two one-year terms, so I will have served the equivalent of one complete term at the conclusion of the year. Thank you for your kind words--I do not plan to let the nomination clock run out without a definitive statement on my candidacy one way or another. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I trust my recent edits will answer your concerns to your satisfaction? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * RE: my question: thanks for the answer, interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilot (Eureka), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eureka (TV series), Savant and Henry Deacon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Captain Underpants AFD
Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People you might want to participate in Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Captain Underpants. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

More Detail
I realize that you probably will decline to answer this question, and if that is the case I completely understand. However, I figure it can't hurt to ask. I notice several remarks you made, such as:


 * ...Committee solidarity is a worthwhile goal, but I haven't really seen it in practice lately, and for reasons that you, Risker, are directly aware of, so the question has a good bit of inherent irony. If I am reelected, I will continue to do what I've always done: Acknowledge the decisions of the majority, while not pretending that my own opinion is malleable on the basis of the rest of the committee's actions. The committee does not speak ex cathedra on anything, and is wrong a good bit of the time. Pretending otherwise does no one any favors...


 * ...Well, I used to think that off-wiki discussions allowed for more candor, for arbitrators to simply exchange ideas as peers, but recent turns of events have made me question whether that is even achievable in the face of serious disagreements over the best course forward for the encyclopedia...


 * ...More subtly, I also did not intend the level of division within the committee caused by the phrasing I chose. That's something that the community as a whole will not see directly, but it's something that was real, and yet another unintended consequence...

I feel that to some degree the community has a right to know what is going on with the Committee. Can you give any details on what the problems are, or who supports a certain position? The details of how the members reacted to recent events may be important in choosing who to elect. Thanks for your time. Jeff Kilmar 22:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your inquiry. You are absolutely right that there are more stories to be told, but while I may be privy to such information, I do not have the unique right or responsibility to share it.  I've been informed that there may be a disclosure from the committee members not running for reelection over one matter that is pertinent to the upcoming election. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I would expect committee members to be in chorus when the evidence unequivocally supports a specific sanction, for more complex matters, it is best they aren't for only then can we expect a prudent, metered and fair outcome which hopefully comes from a collaborative decision making process.--MONGO 04:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Irony
There is no intended follow-up question to this, I'm just curious from "reading between the lines" - Is this the "irony" you were referring to when discussing Risker's question on your questions page? - jc37 07:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have found Risker's recent conduct towards me in email uncharacteristically and disappointingly hostile, so I found the question quite ironic. I expect Risker would not agree with my characterization, but the future committee members will be able to go back and review the arbcom-L traffic and make up their own minds if they're interested. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My ability to respond...
As is always so inconvenient, I find myself occupied for the next 48 hours with sleep, work, volunteer firefighting (which may or may not involve any sleep), more work, and a previous social engagement, so it will possibly be close to 48 hours before I am able to guarantee any responses. If it's a quiet night at the fire station, I will be able to respond in 18 hours or so. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of statement
This is to notify you that you have been named in a statement issued by the arbitrators not running for re-election, regarding the recent leaks from arbcom-l. If you have comments regarding the statement, please post them to the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. For the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, for those of you following things from here, here are a couple of wonderful questions to ask...
 * To every candidate: Did you received all or part of the Arbcom-L emails? If so, what did you do about it? When? Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To the arbitrators not voting on the statement, AGK, Courcelles, PhilKnight, and SilkTork: Was there something in particular that prevented your support of the statement as posted? Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering three of them were sound asleep at the time frame the motion was passed and debated, that would probably be one reason. SirFozzie (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For the rest of the voting constituency, I think it appropriate to express my disappointment with how this matter has been handled. One of the roadblocks to handling this as an internal matter has been my unwillingness to agree to a non-public resolution until there was an accounting for the origin--not distribution (who did the gmail anonymous redistribution) but the origin (how the email got into non-arbitrator hands in the first place)--of the leaked email.  Until the statement was posted earlier tonight, I had no knowledge that Elen had admitted that she was to blame for the redistribution of the whole email, instead of the one-sentence quote that she had admitted to previously.  Had she done so earlier, accepted responsibility for her breach of confidentiality, and bowed out of the election, I was prepared to likewise bow out in the interests of encouraging a dignified and quiet solution to the matter, yet one that dealt with both the perceived issue with my original email and the lack of appropriate conduct involved in leaking it to non-arbitrators. I communicated this willingness to the unrecused committee members, but obviously, nothing came of it. The community has expressed its concern with arbitrators email leaking before, and it has a right to know whether someone entrusted with its secrets is willing to violate that confidentiality. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A number of other members of the Committee don't appear to be very happy with you at the moment. Do you think you could try to patch things up somehow? Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I offered to withdraw from the election quietly if they certified that the hole was plugged. But the way the statement was worded--that my saying something on list that people were offended by was at all relevant to another arbitrator's decision to leak that email--should be a very good indicator of how the rest of the committee views me at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for what it's worth, if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, when one has offended someone, the remedy that usually stands the best chance of working is an apology. I'm not necessarily judging that what you did was wrong, I'm just saying that that is one way to mend fences. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, basics are always the best, eh? I'd have to post at least four separate follow-up emails, which I just might do... but it'd be listening to one side of a conversation. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "I offered to withdraw from the election quietly if they certified that the hole was plugged" - what makes now any different? --Rschen7754 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the hole plugged? Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What difference does that make? I'm not following. --Rschen7754 07:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I volunteered to resign withdraw quietly if I could be assured the hole was plugged. It's now not quiet, and the hole isn't yet plugged.  If the one still-attainable condition I placed on withdrawing from the election isn't fulfilled, on what basis would I withdraw? Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So nobody knew why you resigned? --Rschen7754 07:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To correct myself, I've never volunteered to resign. I offered to withdraw from the election. And surely you've read enough other resignation statements to know what would have been said--focus on other interests, etc.--all of which would have been completely true if not the entire reason, and all of which would have served to save face for Elen as well, who would have been writing her own true-but-not-complete account of why she was withdrawing herself. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to post the contents of the allegedly offensive email? I know it must seem unfair for me to ask, but I worry that the sordid allegations and sleazy innuendo will do more harm to your reputation than a full disclosure.  Jeff Kilmar 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're right. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The original email
(context--both preceding and following--is not provided, as I don't have permission to share it.)
 * Risker,


 * It's going to be an issue in the upcoming election, so I wanted to bring it up here first. I will be actively campaigning against those members of the committee seeking reelection who did not vote to ban Malleus.  I know that doesn't include you, but I think I owe all those of you who will be affected the courtesy of being up front about it.


 * Again, I'm not a politician, so this is going to be an issue that I take a stand on because I believe it the single most appropriate discernment measure as far as who is fit to serve on the committee.


 * There won't be any surprises or sneakiness. I'm going to lay out the question pretty much like I did here, quoting Malleus and all, to each candidate and I would encourage everyone to have their best argument prepared. Consider me asking here first a courtesy dry run, since mailing list conversations have no place in on-wiki electioneering.


 * I don't want to serve on a committee half-full of people who obstruct appropriate discipline for even the most egregious, flagrant, and recidivist civility violators. I sincerely consider that the biggest failing of this committee at this point in time. So, either the committee tilts one way, or the other, but either way I expect it will probably not be another year like this one.


 * If I lose, I go out on principle, but will continue to serve the project even if I disagree with the direction. If I win, then I sincerely hope we can enforce some basic principles while prodding the community to shore up its expectations without letting a vocal pro-profanity minority obstruct ANY progress.


 * (my name)

Obviously, what I said I intended to do in that email hasn't happened to date, entirely because I've been giving the committee time to work on the mailing list leak for the past two weeks or so.

Comments on email
Your message seems ok to me, I guess the question is if you should have used the Arbcom mailing list to send it. I think you should have used personal email. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... which is why I was kind of baffled by the negative reaction I got, and agreed to drop the line of discussion when asked (rather forcefully and not entirely civilly, I might add, but those emails are not mine to share). I thought the issue was dead until a week later when it turns out the email was leaked and multiple candidates were contacting the committee about it. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I've been thinking it over for about 30 minutes, and I think the only person who did something wrong here is Elen. I don't think your email to the mailing list was wrong, but I also don't think their reaction to it was wrong.  It's understandable that they would be angry for you to say something like that to them.  If you stand behind what you said, then be strong about it.  Post the email then say, "I understand their anger, but I meant what I said in that email."  Then, you guys can hash it out in the election. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do meant what I said, and I did intend it to be hashed out in the election... which is all where this would have been headed absent an email leak in which at least one of the redistributions included only the next-to-last paragraph in an apparent attempt to make me look as bad as possible. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the battle is on. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion, here. The main problem with what happened with this is the fact that arbitrators are allowed to vehemently disagree with each other. JClemens knows just as well as I do some of the knockdown, dragout fights we've gone through on tough decisions. I don't think it's any surprise to anyone to say this year's Committee has had more then its fair share of sharply divided decisions. What crossed the line was the words "Actively campaign against". Just to use a Wikipedia example, you're in a heated dispute with someone over a bit of text in an article. While you're trying to come to a consensus on what to do with the text, someone says to you "By the way, when this is finished, I'm going to be filing a RfC/RfARb against you and attempt to have you topic banned". Well, that throws any hope of getting consensus right out the window doesn't it? Your first reaction would be "Go ahead and do it. I don't work well when I'm threatened", wouldn't it? It's not that JClemens was going to make civility an issue in the campaign and his statements in his campaign.. it was that he was going to ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN against others who didn't believe the same way he did on the issue. Wiki-politics can't get in the way of settling dispute at the Committee level. SirFozzie (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't explain why my error/suboptimal wording choice/blunder/whatever in choosing that phrasing is AT ALL brought up in the context of discussing Elen's intentional disclosure of protected mailing list contents to outsiders. To quote someone else, "two wrongs don't make a right". Jclemens (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone was asking what the problem was with it. I was responding. As for the other part.. it was providing background, on why the material would be leaked. It's not saying Elen was RIGHT to do so by any stretch of the imagination, only that she did, and what she did. SirFozzie (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (also, just for the sake of completeness, would you post the original email as well? This was the second one at issue.. if you need help finding it, search on the phrase "unwilling or unable to" (if you want, I'll give you a different phrase, I was just trying to give a phrase so you'd find it easy). SirFozzie (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What, was there a second email leaked? Why am I just now hearing about this?! Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The original claim was one line from the first email. Then the full second email got out. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. I've reviewed all three threads and the first claimed leak was the "I don't want to serve..." paragraph from that above email, and the second leak was that whole email.  At no time was I informed that any other email had leaked, and the first assertion of this is in the committee's final statement--the two emails assertion was not present in the draft statement circulated to me approximately 38 hours ago, and I missed the reference to a second email on my initial read-through of the final statement because I was already aware of the then-known leaks and timeline.  If I'm wrong, and I did receive notification that a second separate email had leaked, please re-send me a copy of the message I received showing me what I've missed.  But what I see here looks like a lot of backtracking, since the community has not proven to be as outraged by the email that we are all agreed actually leaked, so I'm being notified now, after I've disputed the committee's choices in "blaming the victim" approach.  I'm not going to play this game--if Elen then confesses that she leaked everything that I ever said, would you expect me to post that? The email that has always been in question has been fully disclosed. Jclemens (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that in the ~17 hours since this message was posted, I have received no mail detailing any time I have been provided evidence that a second email had leaked, or any assertion of such prior to the posting of the final statement. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Still no explanation for the alleged second email. I'm guessing none will ever be forthcoming. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this message is "ok" for a few reasons. While the tone, in isolation, may seem like it is not a big deal, there are other aspects in play. Given how Jclemens has denigrated Malleus and refused to back away from his denigration of Malleus it puts his e-mail in a different context. This message reads as "if you run, I will make it difficult for you", which is classic intimidation. Such a message being communicated privately just reinforces that impression. How Jclemens has dealt with this whole Malleus situation seems extremely vindictive and not the kind of thing I would want to see from any admin, let alone an Arbitrator.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, as it turns out, the one that appears to have been "actively campaigning" is the one that sent private internal emails to unauthorized external recipients.MONGO 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This kind of internal squabbling should be kept in-house by the arbitrators, as it damages their credibility to see them fighting amongst themselves in public. They couldn't help it in this case, however, because Elen leaked the content of the emails to outside parties, thereby taking the disagreement public and forcing the Committee to make a public statement.  The other arbitrators really let JClemens have it in their public statement, however, and I'm not sure if that was a very classy move.  Cla68 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please resign
Jclemens, please resign from the ArbCom and your adminship, effectively immediate. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying please. If you're eligible, feel free to vote against me in the upcoming election. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would never be uncivil. Thank you for replying. I feel you have violated the trust placed in you and the only honourable thing left to do it resign and return to editing articles. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As long are you're being civil, please feel free to elaborate how you believe I've violated anyone's trust. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will always be civil. I simply don't have it within me to resort to ad hominem. The ArbCom has already indicated that you have disclosed ArbCom-only emails and messages to non-arbcom people. No matter how well intentioned you were this simply cannot be condoned. The circumstances simply were not exceptional enough to warrant such a breech of protocol. Thus, I respectfully ask you to please resign. Love, 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. I have never disclosed ArbCom-only emails to anyone, ever.  Elen of the Roads has admitted to doing so.  I agree that disclosing ArbCom emails to non arbitrators is cause for resignation or removal from the committee, and if I had done that, I would agree that I should immediately resign or be removed from the committee.  But the only email sharing I've done is my own, above here, after my right to do so was specifically and publicly endorsed on WT:AC/N. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Would you consider suspending your ArbCom involvement until a more thorough investigation can be complete, one that will hopefully fully exonerate you? Stepping aside for a few days would help a great deal. I see you're a fire officer, so perhaps this is a good time to focus entire on that? As for Elen of the Roads, her arbitrator/adminship must be terminated. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The investigation which was conducted was done by members not involved in the election. As the committee has no open arbitration business at the moment, and likely won't take on any during the election, such would be an entirely symbolic gesture.  I've already agreed to not participate in any issues which may arise regarding Malleus Fatuorum until and unless the returned election results show me being reelected, so I'm not sure what else I could do.  I have, in fact, been sitting on the news that Elen had leaked at least part of my email for almost two weeks now, so I think I've demonstrated the capacity for patience and non-interference. Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 weeks? as in before the nomination period of the AE2012 began? (I understand if you can't answer more specifically.) - jc37 08:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard, "The Committee was made aware of this on November 13." The first email arrived in my inbox slightly after noon my time on November 13th. I added my candidacy on November 18th. Elen added hers on the 19th.  So yes, I ran knowing that Elen had disclosed at least part of my email... and so did she. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, in addition to the two candidates who immediately approached the committee with the leaked email (Coren and one other who has not yet to my knowledge self-identified), at least one guide writer was identified by Elen as a person with whom she had "discussed" my email. I understand that later investigations have demonstrated that this guide writer received a copy of the entire message.  I just checked, and this guide writer has opposed me, but made no mention of receiving such a privileged email.  Folks might want to ask the guide writers if any of them had access to leaked confidential material, and, if so, what they did about it. Jclemens (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Making a few allegedly unwise statements (Jclemens) is hardly the same as maliciously leaking confidential documents (Elen). No deliberative body on Earth expels its members for the sort of candid but respectful email as is displayed above. Jeff Kilmar 08:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the above comment, as a guide writer I publicly state that at no time did I receive any leaked confidential material, directly or indirectly, from Elen of the Roads. --Rschen7754 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Thanks for that confirmation. I have no reason to doubt your truthfulness on this, and appreciate your volunteering that you weren't a part of this. Jclemens (talk)
 * Well nobody cares about us road editors anyway, but I thought I'd say it just in case --Rschen7754 08:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest, I'm sorry to tar all of those of you who opposed me, presumably most based on my record which has been anything but un-contentious, with the actions of a bad actor or two. Every day this saga goes on I regret it more and more and more... but the "blame the victim" approach is simply not something that should go unanswered here. I'm guilty of being too forthright, choosing my words poorly, and a host of similar sins... but not betraying my promise of confidentiality. And with that, I REALLY DO have to go to bed. Jclemens (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that holding people to account for their vindictive intimidation tactics is not as important as insuring those vindictive intimidation tactics are kept confidential? Honestly, I was neutral about you before this, but now I hope you get voted out.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If by "vindictive intimidation tactics" you mean "appealing to the community through defined democratic processes", then what's the problem? There was no attempt to modify anyone's behavior or influence outcome, since the MF motion was long since closed at that point.  There was no threat to do anything improper or coercive, since anyone can ask any other candidate a question on any Wikipedia-relevant topic at any time.  Characterizing an expressed intent to participate in democracy as a threat or intimidation is unsupportable. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it inconceivable that you thought privately telling a group of your peers that you intend to publicly single out every prospective candidate who disagreed with you was not going to impact whether someone would consider running or not. Given the combative attitude you have repeatedly demonstrated with regards to Malleus, it is very hard to not interpret this as vindictive. Whether doing that would be technically proper is not terribly pertinent from my perspective. Your intentions are clearly not to support a democratic process.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're assuming every single potential candidate is a lightweight who could be scared out of running by someone saying "I intend to question you in public about a recent controversial decision!" Really, anyone seeking reelection will have necessarily had a thick enough skin that that isn't going to faze them. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A full and objective reading of that e-mail would certainly not support such a simplistic interpretation of your comments. Rather, you were indicating that you would turn the process for every candidate who voted differently from you into a show trial by rehashing the Malleus case in a way that would only cause more unnecessary grief for everyone involved.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Jclemens and I haven't exactly agreed on a lot of things in the past, but I'm not finding myself faulting Jclemens here and I seriously doubt that asking him to resign would serve any purpose at this point. For one, Jclemens wasn't the one that disclosed the emails (I say that because the IP editor seemed to have been suggesting that he was).  I personally don't see any wrongdoing here from Jclemens, and if the community decides that the email content themselves are just absolutely horrible and cannot be abided...there is a conviently timed election coming up where that can be addressed.  I don't see the email content itself as an issue; arbitrators are allowed to disagree with one another, and I don't see any issue with an arbitrator using the same method available to any editor, the Arbitration election process, to attempt the address the disagreements.  In fact if anything (although I am context-blind here), the heads-up alluded to by saying "I would encourage everyone to have their best argument prepared" seems to be something other arbcom members would probably like to know ahead of time.  I just wanted to give my 2¢, whatever that's worth. - SudoGhost 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is a very charitable statement, and much appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel I should point out we don't actually know who disclosed the emails. Per the statement, Elen of Roads has admitted disclosing some, but has denied being the source of some of the other leaks. It therefore could be her or anyone else who was part of the mailing list (as I understand it this is all sitting arbitrators) assuming there aren't any security issues (either with the list or with the accounts). In other words, it's not accurate to say Jclemens wasn't the one who disclosed the emails, since we simply to not know who did so for some of the disclosures. Of course, it also makes little sense to ask all arbitrators to stand down because it's possible one of them (besides Elen of Roads) disclosed the emails and we don't have any significant reason to think Jclemens did it as opposed to someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the "lynch mob request" from the OP is, however, clear, and unwarranted in civil and legal society. We know who admits to a major leak (actually - improper forwarding of email content which ought not have been distributed) and that editor is the one who properly should look into resignation, if any. Jclemens seems more the victim than a perpetrator here, but I can see the use of this as a campagin tactc against him.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens is mostly a victim of his own failure to communicate effectively or appropriately to draw support for his own positions; ironically, the same problem (in broad strokes) that Malleus has. Both have an unpleasant tendency to cast things in absolute, 'you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us' terms&mdash;and once you're 'against us', you're fair game for being marginalized and demonized.  For Jclemens, this attitude has detrimentally affected his ability to carry out his aims as a member of ArbCom.  (This manifested most recently and spectacularly in his failure to hold support for the motion to ban Malleus for a period of time.  The motion was actually passing and had a good chance of being enacted, until Jclemens' ill-considered remarks ignited a firestorm and made it politically unpalatable to be seen voting with him.) One wonders in hindsight just how much his divisive approach has hurt his agenda behind the scenes on ArbCom.  Far from learning from this recent experience, it seems from the leaked email(s) that he decided to ramp up his bullying of his fellow Arbs.
 * Malleus, for his part, tends to phrase "I think this admin made an error" as "This admin is evil and must be desysopped", with predictable results. He sometimes offers up valid points about Wikipedia governance and presents valid complaints about actions by other editors, but they are so often couched in such hyperbolic terms and laced with such vitriol that other editors (admins or not) are reluctant to support his positions.  For both Jclemens and Malleus, their divisive and uncompromising approaches make them uneasy and often unwelcome allies to Wikipedia's more moderate voices.  To draw an analogy to the recent U.S. election, they're acting the Donald Trumps to the Romney campaign: sure, we mostly agree with him, but we'd rather not agree with him.
 * The upshot is that in the ArbCom motion regarding Malleus, the case stopped being about whether or not Malleus' conduct warranted the proposed sanction, and started being about whether or not you were on Team Jclemens or Team Malleus. (And I'm fully aware that my comment here will piss off both Teams, and I'm going to be pilloried for it.)  I hope I don't (but regretfully expect I will) see this mailing list dispute turn into Team Jclemens versus Team Elen.  In practice, both of them screwed up in different ways, and neither deserved to be excused for their conduct nor held up as a 'victim'.   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with a lot of what you said, but especially the final sentence. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ^ Same.
 * I imagine both Elen of the Roads and Jclemens will fail to win re-election. And I imagine it'll be for the best in both cases. ArbCom is a plague. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Having two incumbents not get re-elected won't get rid of arbcom (assuming you'd want that). It means two new people will be seated.  Have you looked over who is running?  You might be even less happy with the newcomers, depending. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. While I may have garnered a reputation for saying things that other people don't like, I dare you to find any time I've ever blocked someone I've been WP:INVOLVED with. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: how did that get there, too?
It got there because before you moved it to the correct spot, I tried to do the same, but instead moved it to an even worse spot and the edit conflict resolution ended up duplicating it, thanks for correct it, I was about to but you were faster :)  Snowolf How can I help? 02:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been a long day already. I hope that's the worse snafu that results! Sigh... Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note...
Diff - just to clarify that I didn't receive any emails or parts of emails either through email or through any other on or off wiki means. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that I should confirm that I never received anything either. I feel so out of the loop, heh... --Elonka 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the community can peruse talk pages to see who the guide writer in question is if they really want to; there's no reason for any other guide writer to disclaim involvement, I don't think. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

2 questions
Jclemens, I'm wondering whether you considered the contents of that email to actually be confidential, in the sense that if someone before the leak/brouhaha had asked your permission to post or summarize it on wiki, whether you would have given permission. If not, I'm wondering if there had been no leak, and you had gone ahead with your plan to campaign against certain arbs over their Malleus votes, whether you would have been explicit in this campaigning about the reason for it. Thanks, 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. All posts to closed lists are confidential, full stop.  The issue of asking permission is interesting, because it would have changed the game.  While hindsight can't really be 20/20 when such vicious attacks have been associated with the disclosure, trying to put myself back a few weeks... my answer would have been "Why would you want to summarize them elsewhere?  The point is to get the electorate thinking about the questions, and while it should be blindingly obvious to everyone that I differ from others on the committee on this point, why would anyone need to know about it ahead of time?  When I post questions and get answers back, it will be obvious to most educated readers that this didn't just come out of the blue."
 * 2. Much is being made about "campaigning" as a verb. By that, I simply meant I was going to be posing two questions to each arbitrator running for reelection who'd voted against banning Malleus Fatuourum: "1. Given the 'Dishonest fuckers' comment directed to Courcelles, why do you not think it appropriately severe a civility violation to ban Malleus? and 2. What would be a bad enough insult that you would actually vote to ban Malleus?"  I don't have some massive political machine--unlike, apparently, the editors who acquired and distributed my confidential email--such that "campaigning" simply meant making my point to the electorate.  As I said in the originally confidential email, nothing sneaky or underhanded, just posing a question to clarify how soft on incivility (as I perceive it, of course...) several of the arbs who opposed that motion are. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * It almost sounds like you've adopted their vocabulary... or did you mean to put scare quotes around "unworthy"? I personally never try to save unworthy topics... just worthy ones that currently LOOK unworthy. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No I don't think they're unworthy, and yes my comment is missing the inverted commas that would ascribe this sentiment to others rather than myself, I' guess ve been on the losing side of these debates too often.--KTo288 (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

 * Why is this survey on qualtrics.com instead of on wikipedia or meta? 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't really have the best infrastructure to efficiently do that sort of thing on a wiki. -— Isarra ༆ 17:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you make it possible to see all the questions at once? The practice of requiring an answer to question N before being able to see question N+1 is obnoxious.  I quit after the second page. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC) (new address)

Goldmoon and Raistlin
Both Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere were properly tagged for merge a week before the actual merge was performed. As Neelix said, there was a proper discussion with consensus to merge. BOZ's unilateral decision to unmerge, whatever his beliefs, was thus inappropriate. As I don't see why we should be strict with procedures for merging and not for unmerging, I'm immediately re-merging the articles, and I support Neelix's comment about a split discussion. In any case, I don't see any consensus to split, so at this point there's no reason whatsoever for stand-alone articles to exist.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the procedures are intentionally biased towards creating and retaining articles when a legitimate difference of opinion exists. The fact that you and Neelix want to invent a new procedure--that doesn't and hasn't existed--to enforce your viewpoint is pretty telling. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, although I think Neelix is a strong mergist, they are open-minded to new information and willing to go along with a change in consensus. —Torchiest talkedits 21:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, especially if I am thinking of the same incident(s) that Torchiest is. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI
You are being discussed at WP:AN (not by me). Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD renomination
Several months ago, you commented on an AFD that was closed as no consensus. It has been renominated, and you may wish to comment again. Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In your !vote, you mentioned you would divide the list up differently. Could you elaborate? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Category Freemasons Proposed Deletion
Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A friendly wager
Sooo. In looking over the guides (and not counting the ArbCom Reform party candidates), it looks like you and I are at the bottom : )

Such an honour! : )

So anyway, I thought, out of fun, and somewhat in the spirit of the bounty board, I thought a friendly wager might be fun to pass the time : )

(and no, no money, if you please : )

I think there are 4 places we could treat this as a "horse race" of sorts. Who gets the most supports; the most neutrals; the most opposes; and the highest support percentage.

The winner (the one with the most/highest number) of each "category", has to close one discussion listed at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (We'll leave it to the winner's discretion so that we don't accidentally ask the other to close an INVOLVED discussion or any other possible issues.)

What do you think? Interested? If nothing else, Wikipedia wins by getting (at least) 4 community discussions closed : ) - jc37 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't want to sound like a wet blanket, because I really appreciate your effort to make light of a truly rotten situation, but I am pretty burnt out by all the deceit that's been floating around about the election. So I'll sign up for whatever's a fun wager, but my heart won't really be in it. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. As I just said to Kww (who I realised later was on the bottom with us), it was merely something fun to pass the time.


 * That aside, this has definitely been an experience. You know there's plenty to oppose in any of the candidates, me included. This is all subjective, concerning trust, after all.


 * But I must say, I think my favourite regarding me personally has been those commenters who have suggested I have no clue about policy. I guess all those in the past who called me a "policy-wonk" were wrong. lol After all, I was present at several situations which led to some of the community-wide discussions concerning admin-action reversion and "turns of the wheel", and many other discussions since then. So how could I possibly have a clue about such things. Especially after arbcom so recently admonished the second mover of the turn of the wheel in the Perth case. Why would I ever consider asking arbcom to review such a situation? I guess I must have changed and not be so involved in policy discussion and/or community discussion these days as to so clearly be clueless about it : )


 * Shrugs. Honestly I don't care that I was imnsho misrepresented. If anything, I wasn't as clear at times as I might have been in hindsight. It's that these guide-writers who supposedly are expressing an informed point of view, clearly never bothered to look through my edit history to find out some actual facts as to what actually may have been going on. (merely linking to me using the term "wheel warring" without appearing to understand the context just doesn't cut it.) But hey, it's easy to type an opinion, it's more difficult to actually do the due diligence... But then, we of course only ask people to contribute at the level they are willing to...
 * So let's see, now that I've likely annoyed another group for apparently saying something about someone's wikifriends, and on an arbitrator's page who obviously can't comment as he might like for various reasons... Perhaps I should request some other set of tools and to give that group a chance to vent about how awful a person I am as well : )


 * It's funny. I still believe in the community, even knowing that nonsense like this goes on. Wikipedia, both the project and the community, is a bit more than the actions of just a few. I am well aware that I am merely one Wikipedian. One voice amongst many. Maybe just maybe if more understood that about themselves, and didn't take themselves and their "self-importance" so seriously, things might just get a little better, than the unfortunate downward trend we're seeing in editor retention these days.


 * But then, who am I to suggest that? I'm merely one Wikipedian... - jc37 07:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Consolations
I just wanted to offer my condolences. While another of the non-admins was at the bottom as well, it did turn out that you, Kww, and I were at the bottom of the pack.

But yet, take consolation that there were still those who did not choose to oppose.

And all the work you won't have to be involved with : )

And don't worry about the "wager" above. I'll see if there are 4 discussions I can close there.

The election's over (finally) so now we can all get back to doing what else we typically do to help out the project.

Happy editing, and I sincerely hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry I missed this before. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for giving two hard years to the shittiest job on Wikipedia, Jclemens. Regardless of what may have happened, I sincerely thank you for having stepped forward and slogged through what I know is ungrateful hell. Enjoy your new freedom, I know I did. :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

J, we might disagree on some things, but I would guess we agree on many more, and we both share the goal of making enwp a better place. That, and we share the intuitive understanding that Atlantis (Stargate) is obviously notable. ;-) However you spend your time here at enwp, I hope you find joy in your work.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)‎

I believe you attempted to move Wikipedia towards a more tolerant place, tolerant because you refused to allow bias, bigotry and other forms of incivility. Thanks for all the work you did. I feel disappointment you were not reelected and see it as a backward step for this community. (olive (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

I supported your reelection and have no qualms about publicly stating that I did. Should you decide to run again in the future, you will have my support.--MONGO 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As the only one with a voter guide supporting you, of course I am disappointed - but your showing was far higher than "voter guides" would have ever suggested. You have a good reservoir of support on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

First Romney, now Jclemens. It's been a bad year for elections; the good guys don't always win, but I'm proud to have voted for them anyway. As Collect points out, you do have a lot of support here. Thanks for your ArbCom work and for taking a "hard line" on the civility issue. Congratulations on your RL promotion, too (be careful!). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Geez, don't lump Romney in with Jclemens ... I'd take an ArbCom full of Jclemens before a single Romney any day. To equate Jclemens and Romney in any way is an insult to Jclemens (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Revised: First Santorum and Gingrich, then Romney, now Jclemens.  It's been a bad year for elections; the good guys, including you, Jclemens, don't always win, but I'm proud to have voted for you all anyway.  As Collect points out, you do have a lot of support here.  Thanks for your ArbCom work and for taking a "hard line" on the civility issue.  Congratulations on your RL promotion, too (be careful in your EMS work, there's some ugly diseases out there!).  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the well wishing, all. I'd hoped the election would be a referendum on civility, but it clearly wasn't that.  I note that none of the absolutely awful candidates were [re-]elected, though by disappointing margins given their conduct.  I shall proceed to finish out my duties and term, and then on to my "to do" list, much of which involves getting more active in OTRS again, so you won't see it on-wiki, but much of the rest of it involves getting back to content creation and improvement, the latter of which I'm clearly better at than the former. As was pointed out to me privately, even though all but one guide writer weighed in against me, a full third of the community supported me. I have done my best, to do the best for Wikipedia in this role, and I leave it with a surprisingly clean conscience, all things considered. Interestingly enough, I'll also be promoted to temporary/acting company officer at my volunteer fire department at the first of the year. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you're all about fighing fires. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do way more EMS than firefighting, actually. :-) Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both on-Wiki, and IRL, apparently. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance (novel) - Nominated for Deletion
Just letting you know that Pool of Radiance (novel) has now been nominated for deletion. As you previously removed the deletion proposal, I felt this might be of interest to you. Regards. Doniago (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your openness in the process is always appreciated, even though I expect I'll be able to find sources... I really wish I didn't have to. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I wasn't the nominator and had no plans to nominate the article (though I might have considered it if the article was unchanged in another several months). If anything, I was surprised to see an AFD on it so soon after the deletion proposal. That said, I'll admit I supported the nomination, though I'm equally in favor of merging into Pool of Radiance until the article's ready to stand on its own. If you'd like I can try to locate some sources to assist, though my ability to do so is unfortunately limited. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of users who have... peculiar interpretations of WP:BEFORE, notability guidelines, and collegiality... all at once. I can AGF that they honestly believe they're doing the right thing for the encyclopedia by their action, while at the same time being completely convinced in my own mind that they are completely incorrect in such a belief.  I greatly appreciate a moderate alternative to hard-core inclusionism or deletionism. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm extending more AGF than is realistic in this case, but is it possible they weren't aware of the recent proposal or the pertinent parts of BEFORE (or blanked on them)? Just something to consider...maybe worth gently pointing out to the nominator.
 * Anyway... as you're probably aware, I've, especially quite recently, been on the receiving side of claims of "they honestly believe they're doing the right thing for the encyclopedia by their action, while at the same time being completely convinced in my own mind that they are completely incorrect in such a belief"... it's a tough call I think, because you've got what policy says editors are allowed to do, but then you get things like "best practice" and what editors should "try" to do or "can" do...and sometimes just what editors would prefer. I feel like the other side of the equation is that when editors feel an editor is being "disruptive" even though they are acting as policy permits them to, they often seem to opt for a path of confrontation rather than collaboration, which just polarizes positions rather than encouraging compromise. I know I respond a lot better to "I believe that you mean well, but I don't agree with how you're handling this, even though policy supports you...would you be open to X instead?" than what seems in many cases to be the default "You're being a disruptive jerk. I don't care what policy says you can do, you shouldn't have gotten involved at all." Unfortunately said editors also often seem prone to debating the editor's action and policy interpretation rather than taking whatever actions could be taken to resolve the original problem.
 * With regards to the specific discussion, it quite honestly didn't occur to me to suggest the merger, so I'm glad someone did. That strikes me as a reasonable compromise...perhaps additionally the article could be redirected rather than deleted?
 * Anyway...I guess the TL;DR version is that these things seem to be about 25% people who honestly don't read or aren't aware of policy or specific circumstances that may not be readily apparent, 50% editors who are fully aware of all the details and simply take a different approach to a given situation than others might (while not violating policy), and 25% editors who exacerbate problems by reaching for the iron fist when a velvet glove might have allowed faster, less stressful, and more mutually agreeable results. Doniago (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that that user was recently unbanned and had offered to withdraw from XfD participation as a condition of unbanning, I think you'll find that the nominator knows exactly what is going on, and has a track record of editing disruptively in similar circumstances. I do not put you in anywhere near the same category, and anyone else who does is simply not paying attention.  The one thing that I ask of everyone in AfD is to read and understand WP:ATD--if a merger didn't even occur to you, then considering deletion was premature, because deletion is for articles where nothing--no shred of its content--belongs anywhere in the encyclopedia.  There are plenty of things that should not exist in the current form, but should be edited, sourced, or merged rather than being deleted.  Yet, because deletion is the name of the forum, people don't look for the elegant solutions that both improve the encyclopedia and honor the work our previous volunteers have put into not-currently-compliant pages. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not that interested in merging content, because I know I'll be nominating the article I've merged the content to for deletion too soon enough. None of these articles have good independent sourcing, what's the point of merging poorly sourced material ? Claritas §  08:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to get too involved in the details of the PoR AFD...honestly I only came here to note it since Jclemens had removed the deletion proposal I put in originally, so I figured they might want to be aware of the AFD. Put another way, I didn't come here to stir the pot. If the target of the merge is also a candidate for deletion, then I agree that a merge may be a waste of time. But if the nominator has a history of making questionable choices with regards to the articles they choose to nominate, that's also an issue that should be considered and addressed. I think that's all I want to say about this, and I hope I'm coming across as sufficiently impartial.

J - Thanks for saying I'm not in the same category. Some of the dialogue that's come up in the RFC I'm involved with has been what I would consider less than civil, not to mention unproductive. Unfortunately, the editors invoking such wording also seem disinclined to take the actions that would cut the issue off at the source. I acknowledge my failure to fully evaluate the alternatives to deleting the article, though I would note that as I look at it I don't see a whole lot that seems worth merging other than the mere existence of the novel; the article consists largely of plot summary. I think I favor a redirect at this point. Doniago (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to Claritas' last comment, the merge target I proposed is a good article. —Torchiest talkedits 15:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if Claritas wants to try to AFD Pool of Radiance, then I say good luck with that. Per the unban discussion, the user's response of how they would be "happy to have an indefinite self [...] imposed ban on XfD participation. I'm here to write." – sounds like a typical campaign promise; once elected, quickly broken.  Recent contributions indicate a ton of AFDs and virtually nothing to indicate that this user is "here to write".  Plus I notice a recent spate of Transformers related deletions; as I recall, this was the area that particularly got Claritas into trouble last time.  Bumblebee, Jazz, Soundwave, and Grimlock (nominated by one of this user's socks) seem to be classic questionable choices to me. BOZ (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I humbly suggest that if the concern is the editor's conduct, then that might be better addressed elsewhere? Doniago (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally; was just replying to comments from the other users. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My AFD nominations
Please stop hounding my AFD nominations. I do not appreciate it, especially when you resort to making ad hominem attacks and do not deal with the concerns I have raised. This is behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. --Claritas § 12:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you withdraw your AFD nominations; after all, agreeing to stay away from XFD's were part of your unblocking - effectively a condition of such. Let's not say what type of person breaks promises like that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and withdraw them for me, I'm done with wasting my time on this project. --Claritas § 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks would be things irrelevant to your nominations, like your political orientation or ethnic background, neither of which I know or care about. It is not under dispute that you have participated in bad faith in the past, including using sockpuppets in an attempt to bias the outcomes of various AfD's, including Transformers-related AfDs. Nor is it in question that in your unblock appeal you promised to concentrate on writing, and offered a voluntary self- or community-imposed XfD topic ban if you were allowed back in.  Now, based on how well you've complied with that past promise, do you really think it would be inappropriate of me to suspect that, now that you've withdrawn from forthright participation, there is a significant chance you will return to seeking to influence Wikipedia deletion outcomes through a return to your previous habit of socking? Jclemens-public (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sharing some holiday cheer

 * Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Festivus

 * Thanks! Jclemens-public (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks! Jclemens-public (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Jclemens! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 TheGeneralUser  (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello Jclemens! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  13:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol. Best, Risker (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Again, thanks to all of the above for your well-wishes. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dragonlance PRODs
Hi there, I noticed that you removed PRODs from three aticles that Neelix had proposed for deletion. Judging from that user's contributions, he is likely to AFD any article from which a PROD is removed, so I suggested a merge destination for two of them. However, I don't think a merge is reasable for the artifact list, because I believe we would want to keep it and there is no reasonable merge; some of those artifacts are probably not notable, but some (like the Dragonlance itself) likely are. Do you know of any sources that can be added to improve these articles? 24.12.74.21 (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree--and explicitly proposed mergers in my edit summary. I do not know of specific sources, as I've never really been "into" Dragonlance myself--never read a novel, never played a module--so I did what I did on the basis of my knowledge of the general RPG topic area and the outcomes of specific discussions on Dragonlance topics before. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron
Well, as I promised, now that I'm departing the Arbitration Committee, I've gotten off my butt and finished User:Jclemens/Midas. All talk page stalkers are welcome to review and provide feedback! Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

C. McNair Wilson
Please consider WP:userfying the page you deleted due to expired prod C. McNair Wilson. This page was in the main space for over a year if I recall correctly, and it entered PROD while I was on a wikibreak. I believe it can be corrected in the userspace and be properly reintroduced into the mainspace. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Considered... and inclined to decline. It's promotional puff, and an undersourced BLP, both of which are pretty serious concerns.  You'd probably be better starting off from scratch, but I can mail you the most recent revision if you want, and then if you successfully create it, I can restore the history underneath if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead and e-mail the content to me; its been over 2 years so I don't recall the state it was left off as. But it will give me a starting point for choosing to start again, rework, or just drop it... thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Emailed. Jclemens (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jclemens/Midas
Regarding User:Jclemens/Midas, I would suggest that you get feedback from the WP:ARS because they are the project that would most naturally be affiliated with this idea.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted there a couple of days ago with zero feedback, so I though I'd consult you as well. Any thoughts about it? Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mobileye
Hi I apologize in advance if I am writing in the wrong place, I am very New to wiki. you recently restored ( I believe) a page which was deleted and I placed for review "Mobileye" Deletion review/Log/2013 January 6 Thank you for your assistance, I do have a few questions :
 * 1. the page was not restored to its original state? meaning all the information on it is gone aside from the basic, is it possible to restore it back as it was? meaning before my last revisions. if it is not possible how do I go about getting a copy of that lost info?
 * 2. I see this message on the page" If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (November 2012)" but am not sure what needs to be done and how to do it correctly this time, last time I added links as I thought this was what I was supposed to do...

Thank you very much for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 (talk • contribs)
 * 0) Stop edit conflicting with me. Leave me to fix your formatting and placement; honest, I don't mind, and I will do a better job. Once you post something here, let me respond.
 * 1) The article was restored to the last state it was in before it was deleted. Previous versions of the article are viewable in the "history" tab at the top of the page.  The edits you're looking for are almost certainly there.
 * 2) The best thing to do to establish notability of a corporation is to find trade magazine or newspaper sourced which discuss it. Press releases, no matter where they've been picked up, are not the answer, as they are not independent of the corporation itself.
 * So, try that on for starters, and feel free to ask follow-up questions. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your swift reply. in the earlier version thier were a few magazines listed mentioning Mobileye, I can add many more as well, If I get to one of those versions can I restore them is that ok? or should I copy paste the info into the corrent version which you restored? this is the version I would like to be shown: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobileye&oldid=525128041 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone through and reviewed the past iterations of that page, but it looks like there were concerns expressed that some of the content was too promotional. Please see WP:COI for our guidelines on conflicts of interest (i.e., if you work for the company, hold stock, or are a PR professional retained by them), and WP:NPOV for our guidelines on presenting topics neutrally.  But yes, you can feel free to copy/paste previous contributions from old versions into the current one. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I do work for the company (new employee) I was asked to make small revisions, as the data was incorrect such as managers who no longer work for the company. but I also added some links to YouTube videos on titles ,not understanding that it is not appropriate, will not do so again. the original article was not done by me. I just edited the pagein order to upadte the mistaken info,is taht ok, or should i not edit at all as I am an employee? would it be too much of me to ask you to review the page and let me know if there is anything on it that should be removed (conflicting),or if I need to addd more articles I want to make sure it won't be deleted again. The only info I want to change is factual.

Thank you very much, you have been very helpful and understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.123.22 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are multiple viewpoints on that, but what I can pretty much guarantee is that if you admit you work for the company AND make promotional edits, you'll likely end up blocked. There is no unified policy, but there are a number of editors who are more knowledgeable than me in how these issues are currently being handled.  I'm going to post at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and ask for someone to come help us out on this one. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that seems fair, as you can see, I am not trying to hide who I am , I even tried to post my personal e-mail at first but received a notification that it was not a good idea. The current version is the one before I touched it, therefore even if I am found to be of conflict and asked not to edit, would the page as it is still remain ? if I am not allowed to edit, I wont. Just want to make sure the article itself is not removed because of my editing attempts.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing that I am pretty sure EVERYONE is OK with is that when you have a conflict of interest (I'm just going to say COI from here on out) you are ok editing the article talk page--Talk:Mobileye in this case--and stating what changes you believe need to be made. Out-of-date listing of managers is a good one, but the article was pretty much stripped of all that info before it was deleted.  You should probably create an account for yourself (don't put the company name in the account name), so you can get messages from other people.  Even as you're posting this, your IP address is changing, so if you stopped watching this section, I have no idea how to get ahold of you again. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just opened one, my user name is "danielroseit" Thanks again for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit (talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

One last question: I now see on the page that it says " A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" I assume that's the discussion you opened, but on the talk page is an old correspondence, should I edit that response and explain myself their ? because I am not a major contributor at all, I only edited a few links and those are no longer in the article, its back to what it was before I touched it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's probably talking about a previous editor, not you. Welcome to editing!  While we're waiting for others with more input (I'm in the USA, and headed for bed), you might want to poke around some other topics, get familiar with editing... maybe make User:Danielroseit/sandbox and copy/paste a version of the article there, so you can edit it and try and show the way you want it to be. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but on the Current Mobileye talk page is what I originally wrote, but dosent not make much sense now, is it Ok for me to remove that ? thank you and good night, I will go play with the sandbox ( : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit (talk • contribs) 07:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. When you restored Mobileye as a contested WP:PROD, you also restored the April 2009 revisions speedy deleted as G11, G12 by User:Bearian. Was this intentional? Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the default behavior when undeleting something. Leaving a G11 in history is almost certainly non-problematic, because if the editor uses it to rewrite the article in a purely promotional, G11-eligible manner, it will soon vanish again.  I haven't looked at the G12 material, is there a particular problem with it such that it would trigger suppression under RD1? Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * is pretty much a copy of the December 2008 version of the company profile. by User:Wikimobileye also contains a significant amount of text from the company site (e.g., Vehicle Detection, http://www.mobileye.com/technology/applications/vehicle-detection/), some of which persists through the current revision (Headway monitoring and warning, http://www.mobileye.com/technology/applications/vehicle-detection/headway-monitoring-and-warning/). The copied content can be released per WP:Donating copyrighted materials, but I don't want to waste Danielroseit's time if the article will be deleted at AfD anyway. The company may be notable, as advanced driver assistance systems are being featured in car commercials. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So are we going back and RevDel'ing copyvios from article history wholesale? I didn't get that memo, but I've had my head stuck in work at a different level for the past couple of years... If not, then I'd just as soon leave them be since, as you pointed out, they seem to be PR material for the company anyways, and if they creep back into the article it would be very bad for its survival.  I'll be happy if we can get our forthright COI editor here some help into writing an NPOV article that will pass community muster. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether to use WP:Revision deletion is a case-by-case evaluation. I found content from the company site throughout the entire history, so getting permission is probably both best and easiest. On the bright side, Mobileye seemed clean after a quick check. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think anything is too egregious, I'd say go ahead and RevDel it, but do let Danielroseit know where the copyvios originated, so he can go get permission and get the text again if he wants to incorporate it into the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't usually revdel copyright violations, unless there's a particular reason to. It's not the normal practice for a copyright cleanup. If an article history doesn't contain any nonviolating version then we do delete the entire history and start over sometimes with non-violating material taken from the violating article, assuming that doesn't create a new attribution problem (generally one author who can be attributed in an edit summary). Gigs (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gigs... that's how I remember it being, but I freely admit being a bit rusty on the finer points. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are recent comments on whether to revdel by User:Moonriddengirl: User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 48 (October 2012) and User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 49 (December 2012). Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi I took your advice and created a user so I can sign my name (danielroseit) I also wrote on the Mobileye Talk page that I won't make any edits and started looking in to the Sand Box option you suggested for making amendment suggestions, but now my User has been blocked ,so I can't really do anything on Wiki. I am fine with that if its absolutely necessary, but I would like the ability to make suggestions on the talk page. Thanks, Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect you were caught up in an autoblock, since according to the logs, your account has never been blocked. Go ahead and log back into your username, and place an  request on your talk page.  Hopefully, someone will help you figure out what's going on.  Tonight, I will likely be too busy to help you directly, else this would be a good time for me to dust off some skills I haven't used in a while... Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

G12 disagreement
Let's take a pretty standard example. Someone takes the entire contents of "Color blindness" and pastes it under the title "colour insensitivity", manually installing a redirect at "Color blindness". Screws up the history royally, on top of any naming concerns. I'll typically undo the manual redirect and delete the unattributed pasted contents with G12. G6 could apply, but I normally use G12 because it addresses my specific concern. It's quite possible to violate Wikipedia's copyright terms, and it's possible for our own editors to do so.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've always seen G12 as an issue of permission (they don't have it), vs. attribution (they don't say where it came from, but if they did, it would have been OK). In the case you pose, I actually think A10 would be the most accurate CSD to apply, but redirecting the cut/paste move back to the origin would probably be a better way to deal with it.  At any rate, my preference has been when fixing the attribution fixes the problem, and we can find attribution within Wikipedia, we don't need to use G12. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jclemens is right, G12 should not be used for mere attribution issues, which copy/paste moves are. That said, deleting stuff to clean up a bad move probably falls under housekeeping, G6.  In that case the deletion itself is uncontroversial and technical in nature, even though the move itself might be controversial.  That's the way I see it at least. Gigs (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Kourosh Ziabari
Could you look at this deleted article Kourosh Ziabari, and see if it was properly deleted? This writer works for Iran's presstv, which is Iran's official government news agency, but it looks like he was deleted primarily because his articles only appear on media outlets which carry Iran's viewpoints which tend to be mostly conspiracy oriented sites like Veterans today which reprints Press TV content, and so people who don't like his pro-Iran viewpoint say he's not notable because he is not quoted in the western press, although it shows up all over arab and muslim leaning news sources. PressTV may not be a reliable news source, but it is certainly notable, and it seems that anybody that writes for PressTV or Russia Today which are supported by governments should be notable by definition, even if they are ignored by western media. Could you userfy it for me in case I can fix it? I also disagree with Ziabari's viewpoint, but that's the reason why it would be valuable to have his viewpoint documented by WP. Redhanker (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion was at Articles for deletion/Kourosh Ziabari (2nd nomination). I'll look into userifying it for you. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I don't want to userify that. Would you like it emailed to you? Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, I would appreciate thatRedhanker (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you do the same for Mark Dankof. This is another heavy contributor to pro-Iran conspiracy media networks, most notably Press TV which is Iran's largest english language news agency. Just because somebody writes for an agency that is not a reliable source like TASS or the Al Queda Today magazine does not make them non-notable. In fact, the fact that somebody spouts unreliable information for a news agency that spews anti-semitic neo-nazi content should make them notable, otherwise, anybody that is notable as a neo-nazi could be erase as a WP:fringe, no matter how proflific they are as long as they escape notice of the western mainstream media. Plotspoiler even noted that none other than ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center red flagged this author as being a pro-Iran, pro-Nazi, antisemitic contributor to similarly minded media networks. WP usually does not allow deletion of pro-Israel contributors, but most of these conspiracy theorists who paint Israel as the enemy and Iran as wronged victim are easily and quickly deleted. Redhanker (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is great, but I didn't get Ziabari's article yet.
 * Both were emailed using the 'email this user' function. If one made it through and the other didn't... check your spam folder? Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I only got one message, could you retry on Ziabari??Redhanker (talk)

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Hi, Jclemens. You participated at the Articles for deletion/List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill discussion. The result of that discussion was to merge the List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The list was merged. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

 * Thanks, but no thanks. If I ever get out from the stack of things that people nominate for which they should and could have found sources as in WP:BEFORE, I've got my own set of articles I want to be improving.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit-thon: Saturday, February 9, 2013
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I no longer live in the greater Portland, OR area. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Briefly
Thanks. Ironiridis 13:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Habilian Association
Could you look at Articles for deletion/Habilian Association?? This is an organization that is heavily promoted by every Iranian news organization, and heavily attacked by the major dissident groups under attack by the HA, with thousands of internet hits by dozens of authors and websites, mostly in favor of HA. Yet it is claimed it is not notable because it has been largely ignored by western media, and no Iranian news agency can be used as a WP:RS even for organizations in Iran because it is not WP:RS. If this is the case, there cannot be any WP:RS in Iran since all news agencies there are heavily government controlled. Press TV and Mehr are like CNN and BBC in the west. Does this make sense to you? Redhanker (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Value Stream
Why was the Value Stream page deleted? It said it appears it is an idea specific to one author. Perhaps someone chose to cite their own work because that was easy, but if you look at almost any book on Lean Six Sigma you will see the value stream discussed. It can be argued, however, that it and the value stream mapping page do overlap. I would put them both under value stream since that is the more general concept. Thanks, Sarah, Lean Six Sigma Black Belt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleitner (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why are you asking me? I don't appear to have deleted it, and it looks like it was only ever a redirect. It also appears that it could be re-created appropriately, if there's good content or a good redirect target for it. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the deletion I assume he means. 84.13.26.181 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. It hadn't even occurred to me to check capitalization. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Jak Fisher at the Warm Bodies (film), and maybe at other articles
Hi. Yesterday, I was looking at the Warm Bodies (film) article and saw that it reported "mixed to positive" for its reviews section. This stood out to me because 78% or 79%, which is what Rotten Tomatoes has given the film, is not "mixed" and I think Rotten Tomatoes is a stronger indicator of a film's popularity than Metacritic is. So I looked at the article's edit history to see why the article didn't use the "generally positive" wording, like most other articles on Wikipedia do in instances like this, and I saw that Jak Fisher has been repeatedly adding "mixed to" in front of the word "positive." These edits are inappropriate, in my opinion. The addition is a form of WP:SYNTH. Look at these diffs, which also show that he inappropriately warned or accused editors of vandalism during all of this:. I then looked on his talk page and saw that he has been warned about inappropriately editing the reception sections of film articles, including a warning from you. Since you are someone of authority at this site, I opted to contact you about it. Should I bring this issue up at WP:FILM? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The first place to bring up a dispute with a user's overall editing is always that user's own talk page. Only seek other input if you're unable to come to an understanding with that user after a positive, resolution-seeking, non-hostile approach.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Query
"failures to avoid"? Was that what you meant? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. There are ways he could have interacted with people and with dates that don't trigger such complaints... And despite his promises to avoid contentious issues, he is developing a track record of not doing so. So I'm not outright saying he's intentionally being a problem... but that his recurrent failure to not trigger such problems is disappointing.  If and when the committee decides to look at his behavior again, I'll be happy to provide details of his interactions with the topic during my term. For now, I endorse Sandstein's closure that dispute resolution process is more appropriately handled outside AE. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you meant 'failures to address the issue'. More generally, I sometimes wish more of a distinction was drawn between 'errors' (which generally need correcting), 'stylistic preferences' (the grey area where people argue, but usually characterised by both options being 'right'), and 'internal consistency' (something subtly different from a stylistic preference). Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would have been an alternate way of stating it, but wasn't what I was trying to say at that point. I agree with you about those sorts of divisions, but foolish consistencies seem so attractive to so many...  And those who are passionately--dare I say pathologically?--dedicated to making all of Wikipedia the same in any particular way are never actual content creators. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think I've been doing it long enough to have sufficiently valuable insight yet. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghulam Mustafa Khar page
I would like recreate the Ghulam Mustafa Khar page as stub. Delljvc (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so. Please be careful to observe our WP:BLP guidelines, though.  The version I deleted before alleged all sorts of crimes, both political and personal, without any reliable source documentation. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Why can't page be created?
Why can't Ziopedia be created? It has been noted as an anti-semitic page, but has been deleted several times for non-notability. Has it been set so that no one can re-create the page? Could you restore some of the older versions because it has been noted by media a lot since then. Redhanker (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been salted since January 2012.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions clean up
Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will probably not have time to go over this in depth this weekend--I'm on the road--but I see no obviously glaring errors, and none of the affected cases were things that I had a key role in drafting during my time on the committee, so you're almost certainly OK without my input. But thanks for asking! One thing I might consider on the GS'es you're vacating, however, is a quick and easy reinstatement process, such that if (for example) three or more arbitrators agree that the old sanctions are necessary again, they snap back into place without needing a whole new case or motion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From the Vault: Dragons
FYI, you voted twice p  b  p  20:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Thanks, fixed now. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bryony Afferson
Hi Jclemens. I've just created Bryony Afferson and noticed "00:13, December 25, 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted page Bryony Afferson (Expired PROD, concern was: Actor who fails all criteria at WP:ENT, and media mentions are too trivial to pass WP:GNG)". I didn't see the original article. I think the new one is OK on WP:ENT point 1 and all points in WP:GNG but if you have a moment please comment on how likely it is to end up back at WP:Afd. Thanks --Northernhenge (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hard to say, but a previous PROD is no reason at all not to recreate an article that you believe in good faith meets our notability requirements. Keep on doing that, and eventually someone will dispute one and take it to AfD, but you're never going to get in trouble for trying to re-do PRODded articles with good sources. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

BB10
I couldn't really see any other way to close it, to be honest, given that the majority of the information already exists in the main article. The redirect deletion was very IAR, though, given the subject's wishes. I won't complain if someone decides it's necessary to restore that, though I really don't see the point for such a non-notable person (it was getting 30-60 hits a month, and I'm betting pretty much all of those were off the link in the main article). Black Kite (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have consistently thought we placed too much emphasis on asserted wishes of the (unverified, most often) subject. Unfortunately, people have a hard time distinguishing between unintentionally embarrassing behavior (e.g. Star Wars Kid) and what people do on reality TV.  The thought that a reality TV participant could be considered a non-public figure/low-profile individual is just... entirely foreign to me. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"POV warriors"
You mentioned POV warriors attacking ArbCom here:. Can you please indicate what you meant given the particular context. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure: a POV warrior is generally sincerely convinced that their POV is NPOV, and that any RS'es which don't support their POV aren't really RS'es. They're probably the most dangerous threat to NPOV, because they believe in NPOV... just have a particular view of what it is. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the given context, why were you bringing this point up? That is, are you referring to Will, or people posting in that thread? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To Will Beback. My conclusion was that the evidence supplied in the case showed that Will Beback engaged in a pattern of conduct over an extended period of time with regard to the topic of new religious movements.  To a certain extent, that criticism also reflects my view of certain of Will Beback's most ardent defenders: since he shares the "right" POV with them, his actions must be justifiable, or at the least excusable, because of the rightness of the shared cause. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on the evidence, but if BeBack was unbanned by arbcom, he would still be topic banned. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. And I cannot directly comment on what the deficiency in his unban request was that caused him to NOT be unbanned: My insight into the ArbCom workings officially ended on 12/31/2012.  I think Fae's behavior was far worse, and yet he's unbanned, but I AGF that ArbCom has some reason for the difference in outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith with the intentions of people, I wouldn't necessarily assume competence; which is why transparency where possible is important. When I voted in support of the unban its with the knowledge that the topic ban is still in place anyway, but you voted oppose with the knowledge that the topic ban would still be in place anyway. We don't know why ArbCom rejected the appeal, because they purportedly gave no explanation. You can't address a deficiency if they don't say what the deficiency was. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You make the assumption that I, as a former arbitrator, would ever vote to unban anyone, under any set of circumstances, that the committee chooses to not unban. I may not know what Will's ongoing problem is, but I know what several other indefinitely-probably-really-does-mean-infinitely-banned users' problems are. Even with the possibility that the current committee is grossly incompetent, the balance of harms is never in favor of overturning an ArbCom ban on the basis of assumptions about what private evidence is or is not. The safety check on the committee is the committee itself: its diversity and annual rearrangement. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WBB post
Do you by chance recall the post I'm thinking of here: User_talk:Will_Beback Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Note:
In the interests of transparency and courtesy I am noting the following: Perhaps you already have that watchlisted, and I haven't read through your talk page or contribs, but I thought it proper to inform you. — Ched : ?  00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks, guys. Yep, I don't see anything there that needs current comment. As Will Beback said, it's now pretty much about how appeals are handled. I don't see a need to rehash what I said there, but will be happy to answer any specific questions I can, within the bounds of good taste and the confidentiality still deserved by all the participants. If you can't tell, I think I pretty much said all I was allowed to before, but if someone thinks of something new to ask, I'm happy to comment if I can. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Will_Beback#Re:_Jclemens
 * Thank you for the thank you .. and you've got mail. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  23:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Jclemens, do you know that Wikipedia editors still must abide by the law?
Hello Mr. Jclemens. I am defending User:RatSoup. I believe that both you and User:Dungbootle have inappropriately responded to this editor's complaints.

This is the chronology for what happened:


 * 11:26, 20 April 2013, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 added an "essay-like" template.
 * 11:29, 20 April 2013, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 deleted the "essay-like" template and added an "Advert" template.


 * 02:39, 21 April 2013‎, User:Kelvin Case responded to the "Advert" template and appropriately typed in the edit summary, "Rewriting to eliminate "advertising" appearance." Kelvin Case removed the "Advert" template.


 * 04:07, 21 April 2013‎, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 reinserted the "Advert" template.

Here, a violation of Wikipedia Policy occurred. Wikipedia: Vandalism: Abuse of tags explains this for you. Please do read it. It states, "Bad-faith placing of ... tags on pages that do not meet such criteria" is considered to be Vandalism.

Established User:Kelvin Case faithfully corrected the error. And reinserting a template after its merits had been adequately addressed by an established user is definitely a "bad-faith" placement.

Therefore...

CONCLUSION number 1:
 * Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 violated Wikipedia Policy.
 * Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 committed Vandalism on Wikipedia.

You typed on RatSoup's talk page,"Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia ... without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary."

Why did you tell this to User:RatSoup? User:Kelvin Case removed the template, not RatSoup. But then, thinking about your defense, I noticed the following.


 * 21:59, 21 April 2013, User: RatSoup removed the "Advert" template and typed in the edit summary, "Some *@$%&! keeps claiming this is advertising! But EVERY sentence has a legitimate reference! I read this entirely. There is NO ADVERTISING HERE!!!! The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt WILL BE AWESOME!!!!" RatSoup removed the "Advert" template.

So perhaps this is what you were referring to when you made that comment to RatSoup. However, regardless, Ratsoup did exactly what Kelvin Case did. Ratsoup further edited the Wikipedia page, removed the template, and appropriately typed into the edit summary the reasons for the actions taken.

Okay, so RatSoup did use some strange language in the edit summary: "Some *@$%&! keeps claiming this is advertising....  The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt WILL BE AWESOME!!!!"

Nevertheless, RatSoup did fully explain the edit: "EVERY sentence has a legitimate reference! I read this entirely. There is NO ADVERTISING HERE!!!!"

Therefore...

CONCLUSION number2:
 * Established User:Jclemens inappropriately instructed User:RatSoup. Ratsoup did in fact perform exactly how Jclemens demanded.
 * Established User:Jclemens falsely accused RatSoup. Mr. Jclemens, are you capable of intelligently reading and comprehending law?  Please read Defamation, specifically please read United States defamation law.  Maybe now you will see where this is heading.

Wikipedia editors are still subject to the same laws that we all must abide by, Mr. Jclemens. Do you revel in false accusations, Mr. Jclemens? Because you then went on to commit another. Your subsequent communication with RatSoup was as follows, "You appear to be engaged in an edit war."

Mr. Jclemens, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 committed Vandalism on Wikipedia (see Conclusion number 1 above). RatSoup was not engaged in an edit war. RatSoup was dutifully eliminating vandalism, as per the following Wikipedia Policy:


 * "If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove it." -quotation from Wikipedia: Vandalism: Abuse of tags.

RatSoup eliminated the vandalism. RatSoup dutifully logged what and why in the edit summary.

Next, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 does something that I cannot understand:


 * 00:29, 22 April 2013‎, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77
 * 00:32, 22 April 2013‎, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77

Here Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 reinserts the "Advert" template ... plus 2 more with similar meaning.

Why would Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 suddenly go from 1 to 3 templates? All 3 carry similar meaning: "Please edit this web page from a neutral point of view."

Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77, I believe, was obviously growing furious and used those 2 edits in the way of venting some of that frustration. In other words, a prior act of vandalism was now getting out of hand. RatSoup responded with another edit:


 * 01:26, 22 April 2013,‎ RatSoup typed in the edit summary, "DELETION OF HARRASSMENT. THIS IS A WARNING."

Personally, I agree. Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 had in fact responded in a way that could be construed as Harassment. Albeit RatSoup did respond inappropriately by stating, "THIS IS A WARNING," at this point I believe RatSoup was beginning to feel frustrated as well.

This is where someone of the complaintants e-mailed you, requesting, "Please can you stop" the vandalism. But your response was, "...it is not vandalism. I encourage you to use the talk page for the article to discuss the matter." And so an edit war was then perpetrated by User:Dungbootle who then decided to reinsert the 3 templates.

RatSoup is not the problem here, Mr. Jclemens.

How do you intend to resolve this problem?

Thank you, RatSoup Defender (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually pretty straightforward.
 * Dungbootle gets blocked for 3RR violations
 * This account gets indefinitely blocked as an abusive sockpuppet.
 * RatSoup gets indefinitely blocked for issuing legal threats.
 * If any TPS want to mentor RatSoup, they can feel free to try and educate, unblock, and mentor him. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, on getting another checkuser to review my findings, it looks like User:Kelvin Case is actually the sockmaster, with the other two being recently-created single-purpose accounts. Shame, really, but that account is now blocked for NLT, and can be unblocked with appropriate rescinding of threats, agreements to mentoring, etc. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You may be our go-to guy here
We need someone who knows about wikipedia to help.

"So if the person is in two notable bands, where are they going to be covered? Just in each band's article? That gives no context to the topic of that individual. Consider Ricky Phillips as an example of someone who might be denied an article if the criteria were removed. Does it really hurt anything to have an article on someone like him? Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)"

You wrote that in 2010, it applies to me. There is a dispute at the page Dennis Donaghy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R039j0f (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that looks like a mess and a wall of text. If I had to guess, it sounds like you're trying to learn how to edit Wikipedia by improving the article on yourself.  That's probably the worst possible way to try and learn how Wikipedia works, because what you know about yourself, and what can be verified through reliable sources about you are two very, very different things. My advice would be to calm down and get a mentor to help you improve things who already knows Wikipedia's expectations for such articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Followup
I basically left Wikipedia after Arbcom proceedings in which I was sanctioned. I've made some edits as an IP occasionally, and also helped with a candidate article last November that I could not edit as an IP.

I have no desire to unretire. I have no desire to try to get the sanctions removed or altered. I have no desire to deal with Arbcom again as long as I live.

However, even after the passage of considerable time, I am still deeply concerned that there remains an official and unanimous Arbcom statement basically calling me a malicious liar. I have no desire to jump through whatever hoops might be available to get that statement changed; given my past experience at Wikipedia, I believe such an effort would very likely be futile. At the same time, I want something done. That statement is basically a sword hanging over my head, because many Wikipedians know my real name, and could use this against me in real life.

JClemens, you were at least nominally in charge of my case, although you said that much of the work was delegated to someone else. No one on Arbcom paid any attention to my repeated timely objections that the evidence against me was improperly submitted in excess of word limits, and that I could not reply without exceeding those word limits. The analysis of the evidence against me was similarly flawed, and the accusations were false. I did not lie about anything.

What I want is this: I'm asking you simply in your capacity as a Wikipedia editor if you would please hear me out as to why the charges were false. I could present what evidence I can at my user talk page. Then you could simply reply at my talk page. That's it.

I strongly believe that my case was a politically motivated witchhunt, basically in order to censor Wikipedia content by attacking me. I don't believe that was your motivation, but I do believe it was the predominant motivation. The Wikipedia findings grossly distorted what actually happened. The evidence on my behalf was never presented, so please let me know if you'd be willing to read it at my talk page and reply to it at my talk page. That's all I'm asking for. If you're willing, then it would probably take me awhile to put it together. I would not use anything you say at my talk page to change anything Arbcom has said or decided, which I believe would be futile in any event.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, no, maybe?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In a word? No. You're free to think we called you a malicious liar if you really want, but the actual finding says "manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines" and "manipulating policy pages to further a point in a dispute". You were one of what, five people who got topic bans or other sanctions?  My advice to you is the same as it is to anyone who wants an unpleasant or potentially harmful connection to their real name struck: WP:RTV. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says "manipulated", which means changing to suit one's advantage, which is a malicious and dishonest thing to do at Wikipedia, both regarding sources in articles and regarding policies. The fact is that that was a false charge, and you're as resistant now to seeing evidence contrary to it as you were then.  My understanding of RTV is that it would not alter the page where that finding occurs, in the slightest, right?  I don't care if I was one of a hundred people who got smeared, or if instead was the only one of those five who was falsely accused.  In one sense, it's a relief that you're still unwilling to consider evidence, because it's a pain in the neck to compile.  Thanks for that.
 * Let me boil it down to its essence, without the evidence. INCIDENT #1:  I inserted a quote from an extremely reputable 1979 book.  Another editor pointed out that a later edition of the book modified the quote, but the other editor then misquoted it.  I located the new edition, and accordingly fixed the misquote.  The other editor then thanked me for the correction.  That's what you and Arbcom and the accusers incompetently and (on some of their parts) maliciously dragged me through hell about.  INCIDENT #2.  I was previously warned by an arbitrator not to edit policy pages except based on solid personal experience.  Then, later, a quarrel arose at an article where another editor and I wanted to change an article but in different ways.  Since we both wanted to change it, he absurdly claimed consensus existed to change it, and therefore kept inserting his change.  I went to the policy page, announcing that it was pursuant to an article I was involved in. and merely clarified that there should be consensus about what to change an article to before it's repeatedly changed.  The policy edit was thoroughly considered and modified by other editors who happened to be at the policy page.  Weeks later, I mentioned the policy back at the article talk page, to emphasize that neither I nor the other editor is entitled to change the article even though we agree it should be changed, until we agree how it should be changed.  The only manipulating done here was the manipulating done by Arbcom, and it was no accident.
 * Maybe I'll visit you in another ten years or so, to say the same stuff, because this is the kind of thing I don't forget.
 * In the larger picture, Arbcom claims not to deal with content disputes, only with behavioral issues. That humility is touching, but it's obvious that this imposes no real constraint on Arbcom. because it can simply ensure (when it wants to) that editors who have supported undesirable content are disproportionately sanctioned (and/or subjected to interminable accusations) for purported behavioral issues.  What is needed is a jury-like system, instead of the current crappy system.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC).
 * I suppressed your IP address for you. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't care, it's an open proxy. I regret having ever registered a username.  Using an open proxy is much safer for trying to improve this rotten project.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Allright, I'm on to other things, and will now leave you alone for a few years. Feel free to delete this sad little discussion if you like. You do better work than most, or I wouldn't have bothered coming here. Unlike other admins I could name, you do not appear to be a flying monkey. Assuming that I've described the two incidents accurately, I don't see that I manipulated anything, and so will add them to the list of alleged transgressions that I will never apologize for. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Thanks for responding to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under Covers (NCIS) post. Can you please tell me if the G:6 move should be conducted before or after creating the new article? And if before, will having a redirect page with the same name disrupt the new article's creation process? --1ST7 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After. Until there's a reason to delete it, the reirect should stay.  Create the article in a sandbox, and then when you have it looking presentable, an admin can move it into mainspace, and delete the redirect seamlessly in the process.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. --1ST7 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

edit request
This diff contains a quote mark after the first diff. I believe that the quote mark should be in front of the diff, after the "actually." Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose. If it bothers you, feel free to fix it. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

TPM moderated discussion
I note you are following it and, I trust, the ArbCom discussions as well. You might note at User:Collect/ACE2012 that I suggest an added query for the 2013 election based on what one impartial arbitrator said was his philosophy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Obad-Hai
Hi, you mentioned there were plenty of secondary sources for this article. Please can you tell me what are so I can include them, thank-you. Marasmusine (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So do you understand the differences between primary, non-independent sources; secondary, non-independent sources; primary, independent sources; and secondary, independent sources? The answer to your question lies within the wording of the PROD and my response. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I must not be being very perceptive. Please humour me and tell me explicitly what the secondary sources; or perhaps I should have stated "there are no reliable independent sources" as my PROD rationale instead? Marasmusine (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend WP:PSTS and Party and person for a good background on the distinction I made in declining the PROD. Now, are you stating that you PRODed the article while logged out? That's arguably going to fall afoul of WP:SCRUTINY, and as an administrator, you really ought to know better than that. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I edit so infrequently now, I keep forgetting that Wikipedia forgets who I am after X days, it certainly wasn't an attempt to mask my identity (why would I do that?). What I'm interested in is if the PROD had said something like "Article is about a piece of fiction written in an in-universe style and only attributes non-independent sources; I could not locate any third-party sources so does not appear to pass our general notability guideline.", would you still have contested it? Marasmusine (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you edit infrequently, you might have missed the disruption in the D&D articlespace, broadly construed, that is detailed in part at Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel. It's so poisoned the atmosphere there that AGF'ing on an IP prodding something is... optimistic.  In fact, no matter what your rationale--even if you'd been logged in and even if the verbiage had better reflected the article--I would have challenged it. Deletion of a fictional element of a notable fictional franchise is never OK per WP:ATD.  If it's not notable, it's mergeable.  If it's not mergeable, then it's redirectable. If it's not redirectable... then it's not an element of a notable fictional franchise. So, PROD is always the wrong answer for identifiable fictional elements. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

On revision deletion
Hello, I understand why you changed the visibility of my revision, which violated BLP policy, but I was wondering why you deleted the comment by P&W:

''12:41, 11 May 2013‎ Phoenix and Winslow (+225)‎. . (→‎Mother Jones Magazine and Dale Robertson)''

which basically simply warned me that the Talk pages were also subject the BLP policy. I didn't see any violation in that, did I miss something? Thanks.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When a bit of text is hidden, all subsequent revisions until the offending text was removed are hidden as well. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Darlene Pekul
Thanks for taking a look at this one. This looks like it may be a good hit in Google books, but I am having a hard time getting any of the text to show in my browser; are you able to view that? BOZ (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check when I get home. Visibility from work is... generally poor. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC response moved
You say here that "attempting to extend a statement after it's been edited [I assume you meant "endorsed"] is disruptive editing", however, after looking at WP:DISRUPT, WP:RFC, WP:RFCC and even the instructions on the actual RfC page, I can't find anything that confirms it. Only that "Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page", yet I don't see how this could apply to the extension of my response. No mention either of a "post-endorsement ban on extension".

It seems logical that the RfCed user should be able to extend his reponse as the Rfc goes on, since the aim of a reponse is to respond to RfC statement, evidence and outside views. Since those obviously won't all come at the same time, what would be the point of not letting the RfCed user extend his reponse ?

Could you provide the page that specifically prevents participants to extend a response after it's been endorsed ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to extend the statement, then I suppose you could alternately delete the two partial supports you finally got, but that seems counterproductive, too. Fact is, you haven't yet responded to the RfC--you've responded to what you wish the RfC was about--D&D--instead of what it's actually about, which is your conduct. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't answer my question, which was: "Could you provide the page that specifically prevents participants to extend a response after it's been endorsed ?" (considering I provided sufficient separation and date). So, could you ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at AN/RFC was inappropriate. WP:AN/RFC "is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia", not for continuing to argue the RfC or for making accusations against another user without evidence. My comments were moved to the RfC discussion, that should have been the end of it; that you are making a fuss about it at WP:AN/RFC, is, however, "inappropriate soapboxing". If you have complains to make against me, then you should go to WP:ANI. Please remove your comment from WP:AN/RFC.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * About a month ago, you accused me of "a particularly hateful and violent attack on my person.", which is a direct and rather flagrant violation of WP:NPA. Over a week ago, I advised you to remove it. You have not. As a show of good faith, I will remove my characterization of your conduct, which I still maintain is accurate, once you retract your personal attacks against me and apologize for ever having made them. I offered you a face-saving way to do so, yet you haven't even taken me up on that basis.  So if you want to accuse me of impropriety for calling your efforts grandstanding, be my guest, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether your characterization of my conduct at WP:AN/RFC is accurate is not in question. I'm merely saying that WP:AN/RFC is not the proper venue to make accusations (see WP:AVOIDYOU), and that making accusations without appropriate diffs is a personal attack. As for your deal to remove comments, I'll only agree to it if you write a statement to apologize for ever implying I could be "mentally ill".Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't apologize for what never happened: If you want to review the series of events, you posted in an AfD after I had already voted in it, then accused me of stalking you after I posted again.  In response I said that you were either going too fast and not being particularly careful about reading what had gone on before, or you had delusions of persecution.  Rather than admit that you were indeed going too fast and indeed had not read carefully, you latched on to that deprecated alternative, and have been pretending as if I implied that you were, in fact, mentally ill, to the extent that you've previously posted edited versions of my original statement specifically design to remove the "or" construction and misconstrue what I actually said. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei → Enkyo2
Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion
A few more voices experienced in NPOV editing would be useful at the Tea Party movement moderated discussion. I appreciate it's a big ask, and no worries if you find you haven't the time or inclination, but your opinions are respected and valued, so input from you would be helpful. The article has made great progress over the past month, and is heading in the right direction - though there is still some work to do, and there is an ArbCom case (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement) held in suspension over this article. The Committee will be reconvening at the end of the month to decide what to do.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite. I'm not sure my current activity level will support my involvement, but I will give it serious consideration. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2013 June 17
In case you're not watching, this discussion has developed slightly since you commented- the species is neither as rare as was made out, nor as isolated, nor as poorly studied. Further, it simply wasn't the case that the photo in question was the only one of the species on the Internet. It's also practically identical, morphologically, to another species for which we do have a free image. I quote Miller, who first described the species: "Except for its greater size, Natalus major so closely resembles specimens of N. stramineus from Dominica as to require no further explanation." J Milburn (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but that still doesn't make it an F7, it means that it will probably be deleted at an FfD, which is where it belonged in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, is overturning the deletion not a little bureaucratic? I note that Surfer, the editor who originally fought the deletion, has now recognised that he made a number of mistakes and will be dropping the issue now. J Milburn (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

UnrepentantTaco
Hi,

How is it that you've blocked UnrepentantTaco and that user is making fresh AfD nominations? I'm confused. Crtew (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, I saw the wrong date and all is good.Crtew (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:UnrepentantTaco
Could you make it clear (on their userpage) whom this editor has been blocked as a sock of, it would make it a lot easier for future admins looking at this? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. It's clear in the ANI thread, but those are a lot more ephemeral, eh?  Consider it done. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Question
Would you be willing to have an email discussion? It is wiki related, but not pertaining (at least directly) to any of your own posts or actions. Rather I'm looking for some uninvolved input from an admin. and former Arb who is neither a "wiki friend" nor a "wiki enemy". While I have strongly disagreed with you in the past, I'd like to think that I've never been disrespectful to you personally in any of my posts. If you would prefer not to, that's perfectly understandable and acceptable, but I thought I'd ask. — Ched : ?  07:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. My 'email this user' feature leads to a valid address that I check regularly. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing
With this edit, in  my  opinion  you may possibly have stretched the limits of neutrality  that can be expected from  an administrator. I won't  comment on your participation  in  that RFC/U, and I've decided to  stay  away  from  closing  it lest  I  voice my  opinion on  some of the opinions that  have been expressed there. That said, as as courtesy, I'm  letting  you  know that  you  have been mentioned here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To be fair, while posting about the RFC/U on that page in that discussion may have been questionable, I am not so certain that it is a WP:CANVASS violation as it was phrased neutrally, and is common knowledge that numerous deletionists keep a close eye on WP:ARS pages; the only person who has thus far added to the RFC/U is Tarc. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be canvassing as much as "Publicizing a RfC" and it also seems this "advertizing" of a RfC is done on a talk page of editors involved with the subject and/or discussion, and IMO not in violation of Canvassing or Publicizing an RfC.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 14:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your link is a subsection of WP:Requests for comment, emphasis on "non-user". Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After having voiced his strong disagreement when faced with a probable "no consensus" outcome for the RfC (almost to the point of accusing Kudpung of incompetence), and actively advocated sanctions against me, that Jclemens himself decided to further publicize the RfC anywhere at this point in time is already problematic enough. Any appropriate publicizing (even at WP:ARS -and I can't see how they would be involved/relevant-) could have been done months ago. But of course, he does it now and in that particular thread.
 * If some users intent to crucify me for every little dispute and mistake, then I expect these rigorists to be absolutely impeccable in their own behavior. That's the second questionable publicizing from Jclemens for this RfC (the first one being on this very talk page ), and it follows personal attacks he directed at me at the Request for Closure of the RfC/U. BOZ, if you intent for this RfC, whatever its outcome, to have any credibility in your possible future actions against me, I strongly suggest that you openly dissociate yourself from Jclemens and repudiate his behavior.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two people commented negatively on Folken's long post of ridiculous accusations on the ARS talk page, then Jclemens mentioned there was an RFC on that editor's behavior. Totally appropriate since their behavior there was what was being mentioned.   D r e a m Focus  15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry DreamFocus, but if you suggest that Jclemens (one of my lead accusator in the RfC) specifically pointed to the RfC when he saw people negatively commenting on me, that's the very definition of WP:Votestacking. My behavior was not in question at WP:ARS, otherwise there would be a report at WP:ANI about it. I never made any "ridiculous accusations", I have merely provided arguments that some ARS didn't like and I can't see how that would be relevant to any of the questions raised at the RfC. On the contrary, you and another user have been quite uncivil toward me, if there was one behavior that should be questioned, it's yours.
 * I'm still trying to understand why Jclemens thought it appropriate to publicize my RfC in a place where users have been uncivil to me.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the topics are clearly and obviously related? (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case WP:RSN seems to me also clearly and obviously related (and I comparatively wrote more there). Can you tell me why it wasn't notified at the same time ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, good of you to withdraw from closing the RFC/U. In point of fact, calling what I did (in a caveat-laden and roundabout way in text, but prominently and without qualifier in the section heading) canvassing is much more of an WP:NPA violation, in that it is an unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable accusation of wrongdoing, than my posting a neutrally-phrased notification publicly in a relevant venue was a violation of WP:CANVASS.  Was it not also true that in your discussion of the RFC, you characterized the number of participants as particularly small?  The one recent response I saw, Tarc, presumably in response to my post, did not favor my viewpoint. Regardless, as I see that the RFC/U is closed, this entire discussion is moot, and in keeping with SV's recommendations, I do not intend to immediately comment further upon it. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement moderated discussion
SilkTork is withdrawing as the moderator at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion. If you have a few hours, I think you would do well as a shepherd there (I hope you are a natural speed reader), as with ArbCom moving at "full speed", the case is likely to take longer than it would take to whip up a WP:CONSENSUS on the current moderated discussion page :).  I have tried to be a moderating and neutral influence there, but it appears that some wish for "unanimous instantaneous perfection", which tends to be a tad difficult.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I'm in the middle of a bunch of other non-Wikipedia obligations. When I was serving on Arbcom, I had substantially fewer real-world obligations.  I don't get to devote nearly the time to Wikipedia that I used to, and several other Wikipedia projects are higher on my priority list. Sorry. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * NP ... I just tend to think ArbCom is about the slowest system devised by mortal man . Collect (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration: Argentine History, Casting aspersions
In case you were not aware of it, please see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. Discussion and proposed alternate Principle are at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you're implying. Please elaborate. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are aware of WP:No personal attacks, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", as above. I pointed out a relevant and recent Arbitration Principle. At WT:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel, TheRedPenOfDoom and Folken de Fanel told you to stop discussing sockpuppetry and to go to WP:Sockpuppet investigations. I am not accusing you of violating WP:NPA, and I am not interested in discussing whether your comments were in violation. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still unclear about what you think was a problematic about the diff you've cited. Kudpung made a comment that he thought an action I'd been taken was canvassing or close to it, and I said that statement was closer to an NPA violation than what I'd posted was to a canvassing violation.  Do walk through the dependencies there, but as I read it, unless Kudpung was outright accusing me of a canvassing violation, which his text does not support, then I was not accusing him of breaching NPA. Does that make sense to you? Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The diff targets just your citation, not any (non-)accusation. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what you're saying. You've tried three times.  What does the diff have to do with the rest of your July 8th comment?  Are you saying that Folken de Fanel and TheRedPenofDoom violated that principle by misconstruing what I had said and accusing me of accusing Folken de Fanel of current sockpuppetry, rather than  pointing out that he was (and still is) banned at it.wiki for sockpuppetry?  I'm still not sure that that meets the three part test in the cited ArbCom principle, but that's all I can puzzle out from your rather cryptic comments. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the things that confuses me is that there is essentially a three-point test in the principle you cite, best summarized by the three words continually, egregious, and besmirch. That is, in order to fall afoul of that principle, an accusation must be repeated, must accuse an editor of serious misbehavior, and must be targeted at damaging the reputation of that editor.  I have no problem with that principle, as it's quite conservatively wording, common-sensical, and its clauses aren't fulfilled by the vast majority of back-and-forth interactions between disagreeing editors. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)