User talk:Jclemens/Archive 8

Barnstar of Integrity

 * Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WU LYF
Hi JC, thanks for restoring the WU LYF article, along with its history. Would it be possible to also restore the history for the Wu Lyf variation of the article? Ideally, I think the history should be merged with the current article, but if that's not possible, could you restore the 2nd article so it can changed it to a redirect. Thanks. Robman94 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored it and redirected it, so you can go ahead and merge what content is appropriate. Once you've ascertained that there's anything worth merging, we can do a histmerge. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It turns out that the original content of the 2nd page was the same as the 1st page, and there's even a time overlap, so I don't think it would be a good idea after all to merge the history, but it's still a good idea to keep the redirect as there's no consitency as to whether the band's name should be in all caps or not. Thanks again for helping out. Robman94 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I love it when I take a lazy shortcut to things and it turns out to have been the right thing to do all along. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I'd say, keep being lazy, as it seems to work out OK! :) Robman94 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

request for comment
ref. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and? Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Project Aiko

 * [Insert] moved "request for comment" section title below to the associated text and added this title for the new text. Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC) [end of insert]

unhelpful to delete page: Project Aiko

goes against wikipedia to REMOVE the only information on a subject... good job —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.113.140 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WU LYF
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/WU LYF. Robman94 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (Using )
 * Thanks for the note. I think you've responded adequately to the nomination, and I really have no contact with the article other than to be the DRV closer, so I don't see a need to participate at this time. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandra Bussin
Hi Jclemens,

In January you replaced protection on Sandra Bussin with Pending Changes protection. Per this RFC and its closure by Newyorkbrad, PC must be removed from all articles by May 20th. Judging by the lack of recent activity on the talk page and the fact that Sandra Bussin left office half a year ago, replacement protection may not be necessary -- but you are more familiar with the history of the article and whether or not it requires protection.

If you feel Sandra Bussin is one of the "exceptional" cases cited by Newyorkbrad of an article where replacing PC with semi- or full protection would be "grossly irresponsible," please bring the article up for discussion on the the RFC page. TotientDragooned (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me be crystal clear here: If pending changes are removed by any admin from any article, that admin is responsible for replacing them with either semi- or full protection (level 1), or full protection only (level 2), each with the same duration as the duration of the pending changes protection, whether or not the originally protecting administrator takes any action with respect to the RfC's closure.  This is due to the fact that any number of BLP subjects have threatened to sue Wikipedia for allowing defamation in their articles, and pending changes has been part of our good faith response.  This cannot easily be determined on-wiki, as most of the complaints and responses are in OTRS, rather than any on-wiki venue.  While I've made my honest best effort to include references to OTRS tickets when appropriate in protection summaries, there's no guarantee that the absence of any such OTRS ticket number indicates that the pending changes can be dropped.  Note also that non-BLP articles may have been placed under pending changes protection for BLP reasons, so an article on e.g., a corporation placed under pending changes protection may not be assumed to be not a BLP-relevant article.  Furthermore, regardless of the merit of such lawsuits, the fact is that Wikipedia's BLP goals are to do no harm--it's an ethical stance with worldwide acceptance.  Depending on administrators to be active and take specific action to reinforce existing protections in light of the RFC is not proper conduct with respect to these articles involving real people's lives, reputations, and such.
 * The removal of Pending Changes as a tool does not change our obligation to BLP subjects in any way; it merely removes a tool that allows trusted non-autoconfirmed and non-administrator users to make changes to such articles. If anyone was under the impression that the end of pending changes would automagically open any protected articles for free-for-all editing, they have likely not thought through the real world implications of BLP.
 * I trust that this statement clarifies things sufficiently that unilateral un-protection of pending changes-protected articles doesn't become an issue. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, and share some of your opinions about the importance of keeping unsourced material out of BLPs. You may wish to go to the the RFC page and repeat your OTRS concerns there.
 * Please understand that my suggestion to unprotect Sandra Bussin was made in good faith based on the public information available to me. As you say, there may be non-public reasons the article still needs full or semi-protection, or you may simply disagree with my judgment -- this is why I brought the article up on your talk page, and wouldn't object in the least if you full or semi-protected the page.
 * (Note that I am not an administrator, and could not unilaterally un-protect the article even if I had a desire to do so.)
 * I do, however, respectfully suggest you remove PC from the article per the consensus at the RFC, and replace it with whatever level of protection you judge appropriate.TotientDragooned (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I should have clarified that the detailed response was more than for just your benefit, and Sandra Bussin is far from the only article that I've PC'ed for such reasons. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne
You said this user was blocked. However, the user is not blocked right now and I see no matching block log entries from you.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I placed the warning but forgot to do an actual block. I was considering blocking for a week, but apparently got sidetracked in the process, and then received email from the user saying that that account password was scrambled, which makes it problematic to say "apply for an unblock from the master". Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the account is compromised it should be blocked indefinitely, right?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not compromised. If you read the above thread, it appears to have been a botched and halfhearted attempt at WP:CLEANSTART rather than active socking. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now this all just makes sense. In a previous SPI BelloWello had asked commenting admins not to out this original account and that other admins had known of it; however, apparently, he was not doing a CLEANSTART properly.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne
I don't believe this is a case of abusive sockpuppeteering. WikiManOne had a legitimate privacy basis for creating a new account - there was an outing incident connecting his Wikipedia account and real identity. He disclosed the new account to me and Will Beback and he did not edit in violation of the sanction that had previously been imposed at ANI. He also did not hid the fact that he had a previous identity. I concede that some of the problematic behaviors that had led to the initial sanction continued with the new account, but overall he was doing much better. Had the problematic behavior continued, I was prepared to disclose that his previous account had been sanctioned for edit-warring conduct.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kubigula. Since it was obvious that BW was a returning account I challenged him and he privately shared his previous username. He did make a single edit to an article where he'd been previously topic banned. I warned him that it was inappropriate to do so and that he must not do so again, which he hasn't. I also warned him repeatedly to avoid confrontational behavior, advice which he has mostly ignored. I think those behavioral issues are problematic, but that's a separate issue. I do not believe he was engaged in abuse of sock puppets, unless there are other accounts I don't know about.   Will Beback    talk    21:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When a user draws multiple, unrelated topic bans and incivility concerns (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive695 being the most recent), it is clear that CLEANSTART doesn't apply. The user has contacted me via email, and I have offered him a chance to try CLEANSTART again, with ArbCom notification.  As I shared with the user, when independent non-admin users can accurately identify the user and express concerns, the sanctions appropriate for the new conduct, had it been continued on the previous account, should be enacted.  If there's a serious desire that this be commuted, I can see dropping this to a permanent linking of the accounts and a one-week block, but the user has expressed concerns that his previous account was OUTed, so I doubt he'll actively be pursuing that option.
 * The core issue is this: A person is sanctioned from topic A for behavior X under account 1, and then gets a pseudo-CLEANSTART and is then sanctioned from topic B for behavior X under account 2. While I don't think that any particular administrator needed to take any specific action, someone who knew of account 1 and account 2 before someone complained to me and I went throught the process of linking the two accounts without such knowledge could have shortcut this process by placing account 2 on an appropriately short leash. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (And for the record, I wasn't aware at the time I linked the accounts that their linkage had previously been disclosed to anyone--it was never disclosed to ArbCom or the functionaries mailing list, which is what is recommended by WP:CLEANSTART. Hence my willingness to commute the block to a week followed by a genuine CLEANSTART) Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When it came up I checked CLEANSTART, which seemed to say that they are permitted if there are no active topic bans or other remedies. BW has been on a short leash, however even so there was still a problem of avoiding scrutiny. I agree that his attempt at a clean start was imperfect, and I endorse giving him a second chance to start over. It should be made very clear that he must not engage in the same problem behaviors that have triggered ANI topic ban requests twice already, and must avoid all the topics he's edited previously, in strict compliance with CLEANSTART.   Will Beback    talk    22:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be ideal--and with all of ArbCom keeping a lookout for new problems (I've stopped reading AN/ANI on a regular basis), the community wouldn't have to be "on the lookout"--it can semi-trust that the minute the user veers away from collegial editing, appropriate and private warnings will be forthcoming, followed by additional sanctions should those go unheeded. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it was the desire to unlink himself from the outing of the original account that precipitated the second account, rather than a desire for a clean start. Obviously, it would have been better if he hadn't drawn attention to himself by repeating some of the problematic behavior.  However, it's water under the bridge, and I agree that the best way forward is a true CLEANSTART with notice to arbcom.  For the record, I am certain you weren't aware that he had disclosed the account to us.  However, the person who complained to you did know (about Will at least), and I am disappointed that they didn't share that information with you.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can substantiate that, I'll be happy to unleash my wrath on the complainant. I hate being manipulated.  Feel free to email. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything from WMO about how he wishes to proceed. However, it's pretty clear that he will not be using the WikiManOne account going forward - not least of all because he scrambled the password.  My inclination is to simply mark it as retired as suggested by cleanstart.  Any objection?-- Kubigula (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree That sounds like a prudent way to proceed. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA question
Hello, I have answered your question at Requests for adminship/Sadads, Sadads (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Drawing your eye
Please note this statement.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Saw it. Two responses... 1) The idea of the preliminary injunction is worded to address possible harms immediately without vindicating or excoriating either party, and 2) How can you be sure that nothing was pending changes-protected on the basis of an OTRS request?  While I've always put in an OTRS ticket number when PCing anything per an OTRS request, I'm not sure we can reliably say that every admin who's done such a protection has done so, hence my advocating a 1:1 replacement of PC with at least the same level of protection. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't be certain that the protecting admin didn't screw up by not noting an OTRS ticket in the log, certainly. But neither could an admin at RFPP, or examining the article for any other reason. I just don't think the environment of winding down the trial is a special case of any kind: an admin that is considering changing the protection level of an article is generally free to do so as long as he behaves responsibly and gives consideration to the factors that routinely go into making protection decisions. Certainly there's great deference given to the PC state, and there's good reason to protect if there's doubt, but some of those articles hadn't seen an anonymous edit during the course of the trial, and many hadn't been edited this quarter. If they hadn't been in the trial and someone had asked for protection at RFPP, the request would have been rejected out of hand.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello
Pertinent to the discussion about him above, we see some possible meating here.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'll let another CU handle it from here on out. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It hasn't gotten CU attention for something like 30 hourss.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Suhas Gopinath
Hi. Pursuant to the ArbCom injunction and the PC RFC, I've by default replaced PC lvl 2 with FP. I leave it to your appreciation the appropriate level of protection to apply to that article. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but doing the expected thing is sufficient--notification is appreciated but unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I only notify when I am not comfortable in subsequently adjusting to the appropriate level of protection in my personal appreciation. Do you think that FP is needed in this case ? The problems came only from non-autoconfirmed users. Cenarium (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could go either way, but would tend to lean for indef semi. Have you read the BLPN archives where Jimbo asked us to address the problem?  I'm thinking I may have jumped higher than necessary just because it was Jimbo asking.  If you're willing to watchlist the article, and see nothing in the history or BLPN thread that indicates that full is needed, then go ahead and indef semi it. Sound about right? Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, done. Cenarium (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Avraham Tal
Avraham Tal is a majot Israeli singer. You may google him and find more than 3,000.000 references. It is wrong to delete an article of which you know little — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neudorf (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Jfgslo has started an RFC on whether it would be appropriate to merge or redirect an article that you recently participated in an AFD for. Please join the discussion so that we may try to form a consensus at a centralized location. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
 b  W  01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Mjr-portrait-picture-mid.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mjr-portrait-picture-mid.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens .rf 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So I am an OTRS volunteer, got the permission from him personally when he emailed me that photo, but I confess I've only worked lightly in the permissions areas. Complicating this, I've since switched email providers and no longer have a copy of the email in my inbox. Can any TPS chime in on what the best way forward is? Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

sigh
This is about the "Retired" editor who went through a very dirty CLEANSTART, and now everyone knows his new username. Beeblebrox has been going around supressing or deleting my comments and questions about it. My question to Beeblebrox on his talk page was deleted, with "sigh" as the edit summary. Are you able to provide any ideas as to why Beeblebrox is acting like this? Is this kind of high-handed behavior tolerated on Wikipedia?  Kenatipo   speak! 19:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you tried emailing Beeblebrox? Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I only bother people off-wiki if it's a matter of life or death.  I don't see why my questions can't be answered the normal way, and with civility and courtesy.    Kenatipo    speak! 02:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if you have concerns about things like an attempted CLEANSTART, you use email to communicate off-wiki. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Query about Racepacket
Hi Jclemens. Could you (or any other arb) please take a look at this concern of mine when you get the chance? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here: jurisdiction and scope. IRC is clearly not within ArbCom's jurisdiction--it's within Freenode's.  I grant that this remedy specifies areas outside ArbCom's jurisdiction.  The other issue is "scope"--what behavior by en.wiki editors is sanctionable by en.Arbcom?  While the normal scope is en.wiki content, harassment has long been held to be a sanctionable offense, which is a key element of this particular case.  In this case, the proposed remedy merely seeks to appropriately qualify the scope restrictions: problematic interactions anywhere remotely related to Wikipedia that could be construed as carrying on the dispute would be subject to sanction on en.wiki per en.Arbcom's decision if that remedy passed.  Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, but I'm not sure if I really like it. Plus it seems inconsistent with past practice&mdash;ArbCom has been reluctant sanctioning people for posts made on Wikipedia Review. What's different about this case? NW ( Talk ) 01:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't served on the committee in past times when such overarching interaction bans were considered, nor did I author the proposed remedy, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Having said that, it seems appropriate given the scope of the prior actions under consideration in the case to specifically prohibit what has otherwise been allowed.  If editor A and B get into a squabble at en.wiki, one or both is banned, and then they go off and duke it out on WR until they wear out their welcome there, that's a different situation than what we have here: editor A and B get into a squabble on en.wiki, and then take it to a bazillion other places rather than focusing on the dispute resolution process within en.wiki. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the difference. ArbCom's scope and purpose is to resolve disputes on the English Wikipedia. If they decide to go duke it out on commons or #wikipedia-en-netball, then that's their choice, and Commons admins or IRC mods can handle it as they wish. I'm just can't see why them speaking to each other on Freenode would automatically trigger a ban on enwiki, but speaking to/about each other on WR wouldn't. Both are equally removed from the dispute resolution processes of enwiki in my mind. NW ( Talk ) 17:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fair criticism, but consider this: If they can't knock it off and walk away from each other elsewhere, what reasonable expectation do we have that they will contribute positively on en.wiki? I suppose it's theoretically possible for folks to go at it like cats and dogs on other sites yet be positive and collegial contributors here... but if they've already made it to ArbCom once, I doubt that outcome is much more than theoretical. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sydney Wade up and running again
Hi Jclemens - appears an article you may have deleted - - is now a live article again. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 02:29, 22 February 2010 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Sydney Wade" ‎ (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
 * Feel free to improve it or nominate it for deletion as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply
You have mail regarding the editor you asked about on my user talk. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Need administator advice
In Reliable_sources/Noticeboard I commented how the behavior of one editor was similar to another a while ago and then got this in my talk page. Based on User_talk:Lambanog and its outcome I feel this is a mild continuation of the behavior described in Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard where editor's talk pages were cluttered up with actions that in retrospect likely fell under WP:GAME but I wanted an administrator's opinion on this especially one involved in the referenced issue as the editor in question will not let the matter drop and continues harping on the matter on my talk page.

If you cannot look at this at least direct me to a third party administrator who can as this is gone way past ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking input on a proposed finding of fact
Hello. I am writing this message as a third party monitoring an ongoing arbitration case. I have been voicing concerns about a proposed finding of fact since 6 June, but no arbitrator has chosen to respond to those concerns. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your input on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision. I apologize for contacting you on your personal talk page, but despite posting notes daily on the proposed decision talk page requesting arbitrator input, no one has responded. Thank you. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 22:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A project for those interested....
Have a look at Articles for deletion/Ludovico technique, referencing the torture/aversion therapy method from A Clockwork Orange. Current article is extremely light on sourcing, but the term is so specific that a Google (news|scholar|books) search appears to yield lots of high quality hits. I've tagged it for rescue since a) I have no time, and b) I am interested to see if rescue will actually attract anyone to fix the article and endow it with some of the many available sources. Time will tell, talk page stalkers, but you're invited to participate in this experiment in whichever way intrigues you. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comment
Re:. My argument isn't "nonsensical" at all. Articles based on primary sources are unacceptable. WP:N is a guideline, certainly, but it is a guideline which, like most good guidelines, lays out the consequences of our policies on the encyclopedia. One of the consequences of WP:V is that all articles need to derive their material from independent sources. The "WP:N is only a guideline" argument fails to take into account that we are supposed to follow guidelines, not ignore them, and ignoring a component of a policy because you dislike a well-established guideline that flows from it is, well, "nonsensical", to borrow a phrase.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't use the "not a guideline" argument, save to point out that you've borrowed something from a guideline and tried to graft it into a policy in a way that I believe is fundamentally incorrect. I have no problem with your line of argument (secondary sources are necessary) being based on WP:N, which is entirely accurate. V requires reliable sourcing; N requires independence and secondariness. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The text in WP:V is "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It used to read "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but someone went through WP:V and made it command based, avoiding "should". I don't know exactly when it got added, but it was there in 2007 when I started editing. I'm not borrowing or grafting anything at all: the requirement for independent sourcing is part of policy, not a guideline.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So I have been pondering why on earth V would mention primary sourcing at all, and it occurs to me that in many instances, primary is a synonym for possibly incomplete and/or inaccurate, intentionally or not. A primary source on the battle of Iwo Jima, for example, is just one person, private to general, incapable of seeing the entirety of the conflict, imperfect in recollection, and with a vested interest in downplaying any failures on his own part.  A primary source in the context of literature, fictional or not, lacks each of these characteristics: a fictional element is described in a work of fiction in words that are (essentially) immutable and can be examined by all objectively. They're entirely different situations, yet still theoretically covered by the wording you're referencing. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the whole idea that fictional elements can be dispassionately and objectively dissected by editors is false. Bear in mind that people don't even agree as to what things are fictional and which are not in the first place (witness that there is a substantial segment of the world's population that considers Jesus Christ to be a fictional character, something which would make most North Americans furious). Without independent sources, there's nothing to ground and weight our perspective in. Every article needs to use independent third-party sources as the basis for its content, and use primary sources only to fill in the background necessary to make the summary of those third-party sources comprehensible to the reader. Keeping articles which are based on primary or dependent sources runs counter to our mission.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint, but the world is not, in fact, flat. It is eminently possible to describe what, for example, the Gospel of Matthew (as recorded in Codex Vaticanus) says that Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount.  That is objective fact.  Whether that objective text represents anything at all, and, if so, what, is a matter for commentary.  The problem in the particular case that sparked the discussion, RPG elements, is that the authors of the primary sources of the elements are also the primary publishers of commentary on those elements.  So Gary Gygax writes the Monster Manual, giving a brief snippet about a particular creature, and then Ed Greenwood or someone comes along an publishes an "Ecology of the (whatever)" in Dragon (magazine), which both creates detailed analysis, and ends up foreclosing the possibility of secondary sourcing, because the same company is responsible for all the material.  Given such an environment, our independence requirement fails to differentiate adequately--much like it does for Pokemon, or Transformers, or any of another of fictional franchises where the (sole) publisher produces all the material.  What if Sony were the only record company?  Would we have Billboard or Rolling Stone, then?  These are not easy questions, but I can say that a reading of V which doesn't take into account these nuances doesn't serve our readers well, either. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I always dislike having the plain meaning of a sentence described as "a reading". I don't see anything in the sentence or its history that smacks of ambiguity. Personally, I think an encyclopedia without detailed coverage of fictional elements that are only discussed in licensed and primary sources would be fine. If RPG elements aren't sparking discussion in independent sources, there's no need to have the coverage here, either. I think you would find that the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did trigger substantial independent coverage, so you need not fear that I would ever take Jesus Christ to AFD.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we ignore our roots at our own peril. There's been plenty of appropriate trimming of fiction and in popular culture elements, but the idea that Wikipedia rules prohibit the sort of things that made us popular in the first place is problematic.  WP:NOTPAPER doesn't get enough credit these days, and there's a big difference between eliminating promotion of current products by folks with a vested financial interest in their success and eliminating a catalog of fictional elements from already popular products written by fans of those products. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We can agree to differ as to the effects of the policy and how closely it is/should be adhered to. I don't think the trimming of popular culture, fiction, and non-notable little specks in derived from atlases has gone far enough. I do ask that, in the future, you carefully consider the arguments that I make at AFD before responding to them. The strong impression I am receiving from this discussion is that you argued with me at the AFD, saying that I had taken things out of context and calling my view nonsense without taking the time to actually review WP:V and note that I had taken nothing out of context. Here, you stated that I had "borrowed something from a guideline and tried to graft it into a policy", which reinforces my impression that you hadn't carefully read the policy under discussion. AFDs only work if both sides actually read the opposing view carefully and take the time to understand it. That entails verifying both your own claims and the claims of your opponent.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the disconnect here in saying that you're taking the wording of one policy, V, and used against the intent of the policy, into realms properly in the scope of N. Understanding how that wording got there does not change my belief that your reading of the policy is incorrect, and, indeed, taking that statement out of the context--not just of V, but of the various interplay between policies.  In light of this discussion, I might call your position misguided, but wouldn't call it "nonsense" the next time it arose. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that you want the intent of WP:V to be much narrower than it actually is. Note how stable the language of the main thrust of my point has remained. It's in modern versions, but if we are talking intent, let's do some archaeology.
 * Dec 30, 2008, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.".
 * Dec 30, 2007: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.".
 * Dec 30, 2006:"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.".
 * Dec 30, 2005:"Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia."
 * That language has been in sections completely unrelated to notability. Preventing articles based on dependent and primary sources has been part of the intent of WP:V for six years. WP:N was written only to explain it and elaborate upon it, not to add additional restrictions. Articles based on primary sources and sources related to the material (even if secondary sources) violate fundamental Wikipedia policies, not guidelines.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that you participated in Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) and Articles for deletion/Ankheg. I'd like to let you know that Medusa is also up for deletion. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD/Ix
I was hoping to persuade you to read my comments at AFD/Ix, and in light of them change your vote from merge to keep. If you are unpersuaded, feel free to do nothing.

The relevant bit is, "...for me, the question is solely one of due weight, which would drive the decision whether to contain the topic (at its due weight) entirely within List of Dune planets, or to break it out into it's own article. I beleive the topic is of sufficient weight to have its own article, and at a minimum due weight would be too large for the list."

At the risk of seeming to fawn, I'll mention that I am still laughing at your "breakdown" above. =D

Best Regards,

-SM 07:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly persuaded by your comments, but I find Warden's locating the article in The Science of Dune to be sufficient reliable independent sourcing for me to so amend it. Jclemens (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting, and unexpected (as I thought my bit about minimum due weight to be more persuasive). Thanks for the feedback.


 * The thing that concerns me about such an AFD question in the abstract- for an article documenting a notable topic within a large fictional franchise- is that the very idea of secondary source independent of the topic seems inherently problematic and less compelling. The franchise is epiphenomenal of the works within, as are the topics within the franchise (such as Ix).  As these works authoritatively document the franchise, confering notability merely by the weight they collectively give to various topics, why would an outside source be essential or even preferable?


 * At best, they would offer a secondary fine tuning, adding but never removing a topic from notability. Obviously there are insignificant topics within such a franchise- the Atrides dinner guest making an imitation of the water sellers' call of "suk, suk" is likely unworthy of her own article, but the slight weight given the character by the works themselves (in this case, one passing mention early in the first novel, echoed in the films) seems sufficient to make the primary determination. In other words, in a contained fictional universe, the intertextuality of the constituent works should be a sufficient, principal source.


 * This state of affairs isn't really addressed in the guidelines, and the thought of the notability of so many articles in so many franchises hanging on some peripheral work like The Science of Dune is unsettling. Fictional franchises are a part of that tiny little wedge: after all, I found this AFD because I actually consulted Wikipedia concerning Ix, and found a useful article, of about the weight I'd expected. I have an interest, then, in the preservation of that state of affairs.


 * Fictional franchises can acquire cruft, and a good deletionist toolset is essential to keeping such topic spaces sharp and clean. Relying on the secondary sources-conferred notability test as a deletionist tool to improve such parts of the tiny little wedge seems inherently damage-prone.  That Ix could be carried away by it is worrying.  Also, I see unnecessary AfD templates anywhere as cruft far more ugly that a bit of excess length in a minor fiction topic.


 * I am interested in your thoughts on this because I sense you've given some thought to nobability, deletion, and cruft, and likely have stronger deletionist tendencies than I. I lack the requisite cynicism to see the wedge as quite so small (I'd like to see a data-driven map!), but have horror enough of cruft to be sensible of the map's point.


 * Thanks in advance for your views,


 * -SM 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is embarrassing, are you just too busy then? -SM 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question, that I'll get to at some point, but one that doesn't have a time limitation on it. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And, sorry, I did not intend to imply one: I was just slightly embarrassed at seeming to have written a short essay that was of interest to no one save myself, and so felt like I was imposing. I am actually looking for a bit of guidence on this, since I see others putting a lot of weight on secondary sources where (in the case described above) I don't see the point, and so I wonder if I am missing something.  Thanks again, in advance,  -SM  07:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As suggested by AN/I participants...
I have begun an RfC on the guidelines and usage of the Rescue Tag. As long as we have guidelines on Canvassing and guidelines on the Rescue Tag, and your small group insists on violating one or the other, I will be pushing for a correction. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your own peculiar and incorrect interpretation of WP:CANVASS is not my problem. If you'll look, the rescue tag itself is limited, neutral, nonpartisan, and open.  How people use it is a behavioral issue, not a tag issue.
 * Further, it is disingenious to pretend that you're about "correcting" usage when you've said that you want to abolish the tag. You still, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to actually rescue anything, despite my admonishment to walk a mile in the shoes of an article rescuer, but appear to have plenty of time to edit war against the status quo... even when the most obvious solution to a not-followed instruction is to simply drop that instruction.
 * Out of curiosity, are you a sock of anyone? Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could easily just admonish people who aren't following the usage instructions, or allow the minor change to let people remove the tag after a reasonable time, if they don't follow them. The fact that you insist on using this tag for canvassing, rather than being reasonable, puts me in a position to have to ask for outside intervention.  As far as wanting to abolish the tag, I say in the intro to the RfC that it has a useful place in Wikipedia.  If you want to accuse me of being disingenious, where do you feel like starting?  I've asked for reasonable solutions, and essentially 4 people out of all of Wikipedia who "guard" this tag, say "no", while the general sense of what I get from outside your group is that ARS is abusing their position.  If you want a reasonable outcome, then be reasonable.  I've asked for reasonable and MINOR change.  Either ask people to follow your own rules, or let it be tweaked so that others can.  This idea that I'm a sock is just another side track.  This is not the only thing I do on Wikipedia.  I have a lot of interests and this is easily seen via my Contribution History.  If you feel like I'm targeting you guys and if you feel like I'm doing nothing but bothering you, you're very mistaken.  I'm simply not going to be run off like you guys have done with many editors before.  I want to make sure you follow these guidelines and that's my ONLY goal.  I don't get a pass to break rules when I like, and I don't appreciate the idea that you guys feel you deserve a pass just because you're doing a noble thing.  If you want improvement in ARS, then support me or support your own rules.  If you just want to be looked at as corrupt or as a problem, then by all means keep arguing for breaking the rules. -- Avanu (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the simplest solution is to delete the offending text entirely if no better directions are given. Since "Article rescue" is almost entirely about finding and adding reliable sources, why on earth is a rationale all that necessary?  Why don't we change it to say "Please say where RS might be found if you have any clue..."?
 * But fundamentally, you fail to understand the purpose of article rescue: Anyone can say "Hey, I think this CAN be saved and turned into a worthwhile encyclopedia article..." If they're wrong, it gets deleted anyways.  If they're right, it is transformed from something that's unacceptable to something that's inclusion-worthy.  Using the rescue tag in the first place is an admission that the article needs serious help, and won't just be kept because the nomination is without merit.  This is not a deletionist-inclusionist football; it's a safety net against accurate AfD nominations of articles which are currently so far below their encyclopedic potential we risk red-linking them.
 * Likewise, you misunderstand the link between article rescue and the ARS. Go do some digging on that one if you care to, but I've been on record for quite some time as involved in the activity, but expressly denying membership in the ARS and outright opposed to the idea of membership in the ARS at all.
 * You've been asked to provide evidence of how the tag violates CANVASS; you haven't. You've been asked if you were a sockpuppet; you addressed the question without denying it.  You've been blocked on at least three separate occasions this year for poor behavior.  On what basis am I or any other editor supposed to endorse any change you propose, given that track record? Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have provided evidence how it violates Canvassing guidelines. If you cannot see that, I can't help you. If you feel the need to verify whether I'm a sock, then by all means, ask an admin, and you'll see that I'm just me.  Denying something explicitly that I can't prove to your satisfaction is pointless.  Attacking me also doesn't solve issues with the abuse of this tag.
 * As far as article improvement, I can tell you with certainty that saying "I like it" and dropping a rescue tag into an article and doing nothing else, doesn't fix or improve anything. Giving people solid arguments for fixing articles does, and that's what this tag requires. -- Avanu (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I asked SlimVirgin at his Talk page to review my sockiness, and he said he would. I'm not sure how long it takes, he might have gone to sleep, but I haven't heard anything back yet.  I also linked to this discussion, so if he wants to tell you he can.  I asked him for this, since this seemed to have concerned you, and its not something I myself can prove to you. -- Avanu (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SV is a she, and I didn't ask for evidence to exonerate you--I simply asked if you were a sockpuppet, which you still have yet to deny. I find that asking a direct question and watching for evasion is often more telling than an SPI. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Are you a sock?" "Definitely not"  "Oh, well that settles that" ... silly to think that such an answer would satisfy anyone at all.  Isn't that why we give the admins tools to discover such things?  Here's a direct and concrete and specific answer for you.  I only edit Wikipedia as Avanu.  My account was created years ago and I dabbled briefly with Wikipedia, left for awhile because I had other things to do, and finally got bored one day and started editing Wikipedia at my house under my IP, realized I might still have my old account, searched for what I expected my username to be and found it, then guessed what my password probably was, and I was right, and so ever since I've just been and only been using Avanu again as my one and only and ever Wikipedia account.  It is entirely possible that I have an even older account, since I've been part of the Interwebs since before the Web even was a part of it.  I used Gopher and FTP sites back in the day.  But regardless, as I said above, I can't PROVE any of this to you, so that's why an admin is needed.  As far as SlimVirgin's gender, it hardly matters with regard to her intelligence or capabilities, and I suppose gender identity is hugely important for some online interactions, but I can't see the enormous fault I have for assuming a male pronoun when it is the default generic as well.  Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible WP:CRYBLP examples
Some eight months ago you were involved in Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard where you stated "I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP."

The recent issue with Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive119 convinced me that per Wikipedia_talk:BLP_zealot that examples should be provided but I chose to put them in WP:CRYBLP as I feel that was the better essay.. However given the conflict I am currently having with that article I thought your input on if using such an example was a good idea as you specifically referred back to WP:CRYBLP in that case was warranted. Is using such example if the editor is still active a good idea especially when the editor in question has a "This user is considering retiring from Wikipedia" template on their user page and that you and a fellow administrator ruled we effectively had a WP:CRYBLP case on our hands?

One editor said "BLP is not being used as censorship at all" even after these examples were provided (Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons) which IMHO shows we need actual real world examples of WP:CRYBLP so the essay is not dismissed as a strawman.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I authored the essay not as an example set but as a process discussion, although there are a few examples nestled within it that are intentionally opaque. I'm perfectly capable of writing example-laden policy discussions--see WP:WI1E and WP:WIALPI. I have no strong opinions on whether it would be improved or not by the addition of additional specific examples. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Silver seren C 11:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Received and replied to. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette discussion
Hello, Jclemens. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Msnicki (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented there, thanks for the notification. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way...
I just wanted to mention that I appreciate your thoughtful discussion on this. I know there are some editors who feel like this is just a big waste of time, but honestly you've been generally pretty decent about discussing and working through questions and answers, so I just wanted to make sure and let you know not only is it a stand up thing to do, its appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some people may be calling it "a waste of time" for their own partisan reasons, just like some are advocating changes that will be detrimental to the ARS (and, by extension, the process of rescue) for partisan reasons of their own. My own reasons, if you'll look back on my history with article rescue, is that I believe it should be a core function, like WP:3O that any editor can and should dive into, not a partisan inclusionist/deletionist tug of war.  The reason I believe the discussion is mostly a waste of time is that the number of editors who will a) participate, and b) are non-partisan, is not large enough to generate a valuable signal-to-noise ratio. Still, with Wikipedia's ever-evolving nature, it's impossible to settle anything forever. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Another note:

I see that the Proposal 3(a) is getting a lot of attention. Kind of figured it would when I saw how strict that idea was. Yikes! I'm just curious what you thought about my compromise language earlier. Its really just an attempt to be conciliatory at this point. Because it seems unlikely to become a more strict tag, this would at least preserve the intent, while giving ground to the 'ARS regulars' as I call them. Disclaimer: I count you in the 'ARS regulars'.


 * In conjunction with this tag's use, adding your helpful comments at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen can constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and will likely benefit our readers.

After all this debate, it seems clear that we might just be stuck with accepting things as they are, without any changes, but I'm willing to still work on compromises, if others are open to that too. -- Avanu (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to change things, you need to first understand why they are the way they are. The fact is, there are a lot of editors who 1) don't think WP:ATD or WP:BEFORE should be followed, 2) vehemently express WP:NIME, and/or 3) simply get joy from destroying the work of others they view as inferior.  There are plenty of good faith deletionists, but a couple of them in that discussion are no more than petty schoolyard bullies who would love to remove the ARS and the process of rescue entirely, so they can make themselves feel better at the expense of inflicting misery on good-faith contributors and harming encyclopedic coverage of topic.  That's not to excuse the uber-inclusionists who never met a non-notable article, but inclusionists don't drive away new editors--if anything, they encourage them by assuring we keep a ton of interesting but inferior work around. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After offering to let you tag articles and have me write the rescue rationale, I spent a few minutes looking over the current AfD's. (didn't get to do that until tonight)
 * I did a review of the ones from yesterday. Something like 98% of the articles need to have sources to meet Verifiability or Notability.  I believe you said this tends to be the main AfD rationale.  After seeing this, I can only think that a course on super-Googling would be more helpful than anything else.
 * Anyway, about your comments. Maybe I need to focus my tenaciousness on the other side of this for a bit. Go yelp at the deletionarians for a while. I have to wonder why editors wouldn't look for Alternatives to Deletion, or follow the process of 'before you delete'. I agree that having some content, at least stored somewhere, even if its not perfect, is better than the content disappearing altogether.  I also can see that there is a downside to letting a lot of crap accumulate somewhere.  As far as the Articles for Deletion that I saw, I can see a lot just need more research done.  Maybe we need an automatic incubator system.  Like when articles are being reviewed for 'Good Article' or 'Featured Article', maybe we could have a 'Publishable Article' status, and have certain criteria for that.  Like a brand new article gets shown in the real Wikipedia for a time... maybe 1 month?  And then it has to undergo a review.  If it fails the review, it gets 'Unpublishable Status', and moves to the Incubator. Until it is reviewed, its just sitting there waiting.  So an article could wait for a long time, in theory.  I think it might help for there to be a lot more transparency between the Main Wiki and the Incubator.  I don't know... I'm just talking and making up ideas, no idea how good or bad they might be. -- Avanu (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making a lot of sense there, but there's too much inertia for this to take off anytime soon. If you decide to go prod the deletionists, I suggest you propose that WP:BEFORE be upgraded to a guideline supporting WP:ATD which is itself policy.  I'll be happy to support you, and I'm sure you'll gain even more useful perspective. Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Harley Hudson
It's not usual to modify AFD discussions after they close, as you did at Articles for deletion/Marriage Guidance Counsellor. Was it really so important to add that note? Just asking. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a recent no-consensus close, which might reasonably end up at DRV, so I noted the sock after the end of the archival section. Unlike the others, I didn't strikethrough anything within the archived section.
 * While not necessary in this case, it's reasonable for someone to go through past XfD's and see if any were influenced by Harley's voice and thereby be revisited. He seems to have been mostly sticking to CfDs and RfDs, since I or someone else catches him pretty easily when he starts in on fictional elements AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, now what?
I nominated Jonathan Waud for deletion. A short time after, User:Harley_Hudson tags the article for a speedy G12. User:Fastily then deleted it as a G12 and then Harley redirected the name to the article about the season of the show. My question is, now that Harley turned out to be a sock, does that change the speedy? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the G12 was legitimately a G12, it stays gone. G10, 11, and 12 are always a good idea if correctly applied, no matter what the ban status of the nominee. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So should the AfD be closed then? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, when an admin speedies an article with an AfD pending, they're generally expected to clean up those details. Might drop Fastily a note to that effect. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle whichever
Does any admin talk page stalker feel like going through this latest Otto incarnation's XfDs, speedies, and PRODs and finding ones which were inappropriately influenced? I see a few that were, a few that were not (i.e., reasonable noms that the community endorsed), and a lot more that need going through. I'd love to be able to delegate this to a volunteer, given what all else I have on my plate... Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of these nominations (hell, most of the ones I've looked at) look perfectly valid to me. I don't know where you got the idea that we struck out valid comments because they were made by socks (except in cases where the socks were supporting each other): we only unperson people around here if they're actually banned, and an indefinite block is not a ban. It's fair enough dropping a note indicating that the account was a sock, but striking the comments themselves was OTT. I've unstruck one open TfD for that reason. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. You'd think we'd auto-upgrade repeat sockmasters to bannees for just this reason, but apparently, you're right.  I'll start the WP:AN discussion.  The point about banned users clearly applies to sockmasters, though: we've given them the boot, and instead of asking permission to return to editing, they intentionally and capriciously return year after year, attempting to carry out their chosen agenda.  Really, un-striking a comment doesn't seem like a good idea, even if legally permitted. Are you advocating that Otto4711 be pardoned from his misdeeds and reinstated as is?  If not, then why un-strike a single one of his edits?  Just because they happen to agree with your perspective on something? By all means, make the same argument and good for you should it carry the day, but do not let recalcitrant sockpuppeteers have a say outside their options to appeal to the community for reinstatement. Jclemens (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm one of those bleeding heart types who thinks that if socks are behaving themselves then it's often a waste of effort to go hunting them down. I also think that striking the opening nomination in an XfD gives a rather mixed impression to people looking to comment ("it's still open, but woah, an Arb struck the nomination?") which makes it unclear if the nom is still valid (which of course it is). Several (most?) of the noms in question actually currently have support, and striking comments in discussions that are already closed seems like a bit of a waste of time in any case. I agree that it sends a mixed message to would-be sockers, but in the end the carrot ("if you're doing good work here, you might as well try to get reinstated so that you're not doing it under false pretence") works better than the stick ("if you don't want to follow the Standard Offer we will chase you with dogs"). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For versions of "behaving themselves" that include never being identifiable as their former self, I generally agree. But this particular editor is simply iterating through styles while working on his hobby horse topics and abusing others who defend things he wants to delete.  Just because this iteration looks more benign than Are You The Cow Of Pain? doesn't make him actually benign or behaving himself. Jclemens (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U: Cirt
Hi Jclemens, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N  466  13:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, but in the interest of remaining neutral should the topic arise before the committee again, (and because I haven't directly observed any of Cirt's recent disputes) I will probably not participate. Jclemens (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Request
You've seemed to be pretty reasonable throughout our debates and discussions. I'm here asking if you have any suggestions about how to deal with Dream Focus in a productive and positive manner. I'm out of ideas at this point. My impression of things is that we have a bigger group of editors thinking about Article Rescue than we once did, and I think that is probably a good thing. However, I don't want incivil debates to dominate, so I'm just seeing if you have any thoughts on this.

Incidentally, I did ask Slim Virgin *twice* to check my sockishness, and I don't know if anything ever came of that. Dream Focus apparently feels that I am a sock also, having declared as much to User:Taelus, and I have asked Taelus to help clear this up. I don't confine myself to just Rescue stuff, I do other articles and topics. Anyway, if you have any suggestions or thoughts on all this, I would appreciate it, like I said, even though we don't see eye-to-eye on every issue, I get the impression that you are fairly reasonable. -- Avanu (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus shares co-belligerent status with me, as do Warden, Ikip/Okip, and some others. They almost always align with me when I propose that something be kept at an AfD, and occasionally vice versa.  But just because we are often on the same side of such debates doesn't mean I have any particular affiliation with them or they with me.  I dislike the politicization and Wikiprojectifying of the ARS, while others tend to see it as a net positive.  I'm not a "joiner" and see little or no value in a group rescue effort, since it's almost always easier to work alone and make good arguments, rather than to raise a ruckus and call partisans from all sides to a pitched battle where "encyclopedic potential" is lost in the fog of pitched battle.  At any rate, I really can't give you a whole lot of advice on how to talk to DreamFocus, since I don't talk to him all that often myself.
 * Oh, and I've decided you're probably not a sock, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. There are multiple instances of banned editors who have "restarted" and made many positive contributions before they were found out, so there's not any cutoff for suspicion. I think I'm one of the few people I know who's never been accused of socking--partly because I created this account long before I actually started editing on a regular basis, and make my own variety of arguments, and have among the most eclectic editing interests known to man. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, well, I appreciate that you responded nontheless. -- Avanu (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for - I toyed with the idea of providing a link to the film but decided it wasn't necessary, however you're probably right, shouldn't have assumed that everyone would be cultured enough to see the joke. pablo 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All the people working on such a project should see the joke, but it's unfortunate that there always seems to be one who doesn't get it. I liked it, appreciated it, and thought it only slightly improved by adding a wikilink for the under-clued. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 June 30
Hi Jclemens. I've clarified at DRV exactly why I deleted User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm still not convinced eliminating it from userspace is appropriate, but your explanation does shed a bunch more light on your thought process, which I can certainly appreciate even if I'm not sure I agree. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing my comment. Jayjg (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had it
And here's the start of my evidence. Dreadstar ☥  03:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and here's my latest "I DON'T LIKE IT" according to WBB: Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2. Bet your ass I don't like it, but I think it damned well violates BLP too.  Something else I don't like.  Dreadstar  ☥  03:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if the both of you might not each benefit from taking a break from each other and this dispute, and seeing what the community has to say about it. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course, something else I apparently didn't like:, but I think it's the core of why WBB is pushing back on this deletion. Naturally, I..well, just don't like anything.  Dreadstar  ☥  03:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not just me. Dreadstar ☥  03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And yeah, I'll leave him alone if he leaves me alone. Not a problem. Dreadstar ☥  03:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia!
Last night, I took about an hour and ambled through a bunch of topics on British titles and nobility. Today I perused through articles on a movie I'd just watched with my son, and spidered my way through the filmographies of a few of the bit players who I wasn't quite able to place. In amongst all the fighting over what Wikipedia should be or become, I think it's far too easy to lose sight of what it is--a great free resource, built by a ton of people who each write or improve what they care about. As an admin and more recently arbitrator, I've found it periodically useful and enlightening to just use Wikipedia for a resource--without trying to clean anything up (though I often do anyways). In many ways, Wikipedia reminds me of religion, where people who share so much in common allow the little things to divide them and draw their focus away from a magnificent common heritage and on to the relatively minor areas of disagreement. Wikipedia truly is a great resource, a contribution that will be in the "top 10" lists of histories of the dawn of the Internet age written 50 years from now. It's bigger than any of us, bigger than all of us put together, even, and even in the midst of the most serious crisis since I assumed office on the arbitration committee, I'm glad that I chose to seriously participate in it. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

About your nominated GAs
Hello there Jclemens, I've reviewed one of your nominated G articles, Winter Is Coming and I'm afraid I had to fail it because it lacked reliable sources/references and I've just noticed that you've also nominated The Kingsroad and Lord Snow and as it turns out they have the same references as the one I've failed.

I'll not review those articles because I'd feel as if I'd robbed you, but then again you haven't made a single edit to any of the three articles you've nominated for GA, what do you feel qualifies you to nominate them? But, that isn't the main issue, it's that there are now 2 articles up for nom that aren't up to scratch on their sources, could you possibly either gather the refs together yourself or take them off the list for another time, thanks a lot and sorry that I have to hurt rather than help you.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 15:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll review the fail, but there's no particular personal investment there--I am not a major editor to the articles, just someone who came along and said, "wow, this is pretty close to GA quality". Out of curiosity, did you consider and reject the idea of placing the episode article on hold? Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do normally place my reviews on hold, but this article essentially needs a rewrite because the contents could be fallacious based on the refs. That's why I wrote the bulleted tweaks that were needed, because I was initially going to put it on hold and then pass it once the changes were made, but then I spotted that half of the refs were from blogs and fansites, which is far more difficult to do in one sitting, so I felt it would be best to wait a little while. Well sorry about that and I hope to see you around.  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 17:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You still have two articles up for GA review that are not up to scratch on their references. Are you planning on doing something about this, like adding references, or retracting the candidates or are you waiting for them to be reviewed?  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When I nominated all three of them several weeks ago, I anticipated that I would have time to deal with issues raised. As is, several Arbcom matters are taking up my Wikipedia time, you didn't place the first one on hold in order for me to deal with the feedback before sending it back to the end of the GA line, and you've said you weren't going to do the other two.  I haven't even had a chance to go through the current version of WIAGA and decide whether or not I agree with your call.  Oh, and to answer your question raised above--anyone can nominate anything for GA.  While it's typically an editor of the article, it's just as legitimate for an editor who sees the potential to nominate, and then finish whatever cleanup is necessary when the article is placed on hold.  So... yes, I'm still waiting for them to be reviewed by someone else. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay well The Kingsroad has 7 unreliable sources out of 14 and Lord Snow has 10 unreliable sources out of 17 (blogs and fansites for both). If you want these articles to stand a fair chance of passing a GAR, you should probably change the references. For the moment most reviewers are going to quickfail them if they notice that the references are unreliable. Thanks and good luck,  That Ole Cheesy Dude  ( Talk to the hand! ) 21:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question for you.
Regarding the IP you just blocked as a sock of that Bello guy, there is an on-going AFD that the IP opened, in which the consensus seems to be to merge and redirect the article in question. Does your block in any way affect that discussion and the ultimate result thereof? Do we need to restart it with an editor in good standing as the nominator? Thanks in advance, LHM 07:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. While the editor has been sanctioned in almost every single incarnation he's been spotted in, he's not banned. What's the AfD? I can check to see if he's voted twice, but striking duplicate !votes should be the extent of the impact there. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, assuming that it's Articles for deletion/Generation of Youth for Christ, I can pretty much personally confirm that none of those other participants are this user. :-) You're good to go. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the one. If I may, another question has arisen there. One of Bello/50.whatever's adversaries took it upon himself to strike the (now-blocked) IP's recommendation. I reverted the striking, because it seemed improper on its face. But, as I'm not familiar with exact protocols regarding such things, would you mind taking a look, and if any striking needs done, doing so as an uninvolved editor? Best, LHM 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Point 'em here if needed. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks again! LHM 08:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this advice is out of date for future instances, because he has now been community banned at ANI. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Another quick question for you regarding Salegi=Wikimanone=BelloWello=50.72.159.224=????
Thank you for your actions regarding BelloWello. What's the best forum for requesting an investigation of the other experienced SPA IPs who were editing on the Seventh Day Adventist articles in a style strangely similar to BelloWello's? --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SPI suspecting him sounds like the best venue to me. If it's someone else, they will sort that out. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JC. You walk on water, in my book!  --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled how I got selected for this notice, since I haven't participated in either. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping proposed decision
All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash  have a chat 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Further problems with pro-SDA editors.
There is some serious grave-dancing going on about the block (and eventual ban) of Bello. I told them it didn't look very good to be acting that way, but it continued apace. They're also planning how that can be used as kind of a jury nullifier when it comes to the eventual close of the AFD. There's a large assumption amongst them that because they've marshaled the troops to make spurious keep arguments at the AFD, that there's basically no chance it will be merged or deleted. Perhaps a fresh voice talking to them would be helpful. They've drawn pretty clear battle lines, and no matter how civil I am in communicating with them, they've place me firmly in the "enemies" camp. LHM 05:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BelloWello poisoned the well, well and truly, just like he did every other single topic he touched, and it's going to take some time for people to calm down now that he's been removed from the situation. I'd suggest stepping back, and not worrying too much if the article is kept: keep appropriate tags on it, and feel free to re-nominate it in a few months if nothing has changed.  You weren't the direct target of his hostility and battleground antics, so it may not seem like such a big deal to you as it does to the other "side" in the conflict. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I was only briefly the target of Bello's ire and battleground tactics, I've been on the receiving end of the single-purpose SDA folks' ire for a few days now. (And, in their way, they're every bit the battle line drawers that Bello was.) I prefer the open hostility of a guy like Bello to the passive-aggressive stuff I've been dealing with lately. LHM 05:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not fun for you anymore, I strongly suggest going off in a completely different direction for a while. That works for me, since my interests are so eclectic, but clearly isn't for everyone.  I think abandoning a battleground is preferable to quitting Wikipedia entirely, and I've had to do that a number of times over the years, because even when I was "winning", I was ruining my enjoyment.  This is a hobby: a mondo-cool one, but still a hobby I do for fun. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm burnt out on Wikipedia. I edit a lot of different things (my contrib list is quite eclectic as well!), and have no particular interest in SDA articles outside of the fact that I've learned that there are a ton of them existing outside of our notability policy. In fact, I only came upon the GYFC article when I was doing a spot of RC work, and reverted a section blanking by Bello's IP, ironically enough. No, my only interest there is in seeing WP policy followed, and nothing more. I reserve most of my actual editing time for articles I find more interesting, or simple RC patrolling. LHM 06:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Non-notable articles are one of many problems in Wikipedia, and I rank non-notable articles without any COI promotion in them as pretty low on the list of things I believe need to be fixed urgently.  If you want to get worked up over something, BLPs can be pretty atrocious, and actually affect real people. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's part of the concern about SDA-related articles: as most are sourced only to SDA-related publications, they turn into little more than puff-pieces. As for BLP, it's a growing concern of mine, as I've expressed at a few recent AFDs on related articles. For me, WP:BLP is probably the policy I've come to hold in the highest regard. There's simply no excuse for having violations of that policy existing on this project. LHM 06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider, though, that SDAs are often regarded with suspicion by other Christian denominations, so they won't get the level of coverage in Christianity Today that other denominations might. They're pretty insular, and with relatively good reason.  I remember seeing a polemical 4-tract series on "What's wrong with..." that covered LDS, JWs, Christian Science, and SDA.  Now, I don't know how much of a Christian Theology buff you might happen to be, but if not, take my word for it: SDA is the "one of these things is not like the others" out of that foursome, hands down. So, against that backdrop, I have some sympathy for an increased level of self-reference vs. what one might find for e.g. the Southern Baptists. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's definitely odd to lump the SDAs with those other groups. However, the need for reliable 3rd party coverage doesn't seem like an incredibly high bar to jump. Surely, if these conferences and such are truly notable, they'd be mentioned in local news coverage and such, at least as a sort of "X people attended Y conference." GYFC doesn't even have that. But, if you're even willing to (mostly) disregard the 3rd party coverage requirement, then they're probably right: Bello getting banned has probably poisoned the well enough that whatever admin closes it will give weight to their ILIKEIT-style arguments, per the "aggrieved minority" angle nullifying the 3rd party coverage requirement. As an editor who's just now dabbling into policy matters, I find that disappointing, but I guess there's not much that can be done to counter such an argument. It's circular and self-fulfilling, and if accepted, impossible to counter for that reason. LHM 07:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't prematurely sell closing admins short. There's enough complaints about bad closes, that most self-select for only non-controversial things unless they have a thick skin and a good grasp of policy. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right. But I would consider you that type of admin, and even you are being swayed by that kind of circular logic, so whatever happens, happens, I guess. I left a note at the talk page, where Donald is currently placing a wall of text about why the article should be kept, even with only SDA sources, noting that I took it off my watchlist. It's just not worth the wikistress right now. (Donald's been okay, but the other two pro-SDA editors have been "drawing the battle lines" pretty relentlessly.) Best, LHM 07:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's one thing I'm not, it's a slave to established rules. Rather, the guidelines are there to do just that: guide.  If I see something that's clearly within the scope of WP:5P, reading them broadly as a reader might, but yet prohibited, restricted, or excluded by another policy in a way for which I can't see an appropriate justification, then that's probably a "bug" in the rules.  Fictional game content is one such area--others have argued that most specific Dungeons & Dragons content isn't notable because the rulebooks, adventure modules, and magazine supporting material were all published by the company that promoted the game.  Taken to an extreme, that viewpoint would destroy much worthwhile content that readers expect to find here, because we are the authoritative encyclopedia for most things geek.  Even when there's no real challenge to the popularity, commercial viability, or accuracy, some use "notability" as a criterion for attempts to restrict such material which ignores the reason it was put there in the first place: enough readers care about it for it to be worthwhile for us to write about it.  Notability guidelines that deprive readers of topics serve no encyclopedic purpose, and there's no circular logic there, just a lack of slavish adherence to current implementation guidelines, which are buggy. Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that reasoning isn't circular. It boils down to WP:ILIKEIT at its core, with the only caveat being, at least several people need to like it. And if they do, it's kept, notable or not, because people like it. The other place where I would take issue with the argument (as it pertains to the GYFC article particularly) is that there isn't nearly the same following for this GYFC thing as for D&D. It's not close. LHM 15:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JC, you don't just walk on water, you hop, skip and jump across it! Your approach to notability here is very refreshing because it's so reasonable.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I could have told you this was coming. Kenatipo was one of the editors participating in the grave dancing I mention above, as they celebrated the fact that Bello's banning would mean they most likely would de facto get to keep the GYFC article. LHM 16:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LHM, you seem to not understand the big picture here. The "grave dancing" as you call it had pretty much nothing to do with the GYC article. You don't understand the hell that Bello put all of us through. Largely because of him I personally received something like 3 blocks and who knows how many reports to ANI and the like. He did it through his IP sock too. JC is just filling you in on the details at the end of a long and messy ordeal. The SDA situation on here has been crazy and we are happy that some normalcy can return. GYC plays very little part of this. It's a separate issue.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, if you were blocked 3 times, that's on you. Individual editors make individual choices. Second, it is not "normalcy" when pro-SDA editors then take aim at editors who want to see policy enforced neutrally on SDA articles. That's not "normalcy" at all, and it's one of the main reasons I unwatchlisted every article and AFD having to do with SDA topics. Dealing with pro-SDA editors has been quite unpleasant. LHM 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should have thicker skin and stop coming over here (SDA topic articles and their discussions) to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND. Bello took advantage of my inexperience to suit his own ends. Oh and there's no such thing as "pro-SDA editors". It's ironic you would say such considering editors like Lionel are Catholic (a church many SDA's describe as "the harlot" or "beast").--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to those who have watched the discussion unfold to note who has used battleground tactics. I've tried to be calm and reasoned at all points. If you have any particular concerns about specific edits of mine that you feel have crossed the line into setting up a battleground, feel free to post links to those comments at my talkpage. Best, LHM 17:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FVK, didn't that sucker make an unearthly squeal when I drove the oaken stake through his heart (such as it was)? Good thing you were standing by with the revolver loaded with silver bullets and Lionel had the crucifix (blessed by B16!) right where the recently demised could clearly see it!  Lithistman, I haven't voted on the GYC article; I don't think I even worked on it; and I'll probably just stay out of it.  Somebody had to stand up to user:Salegi and if that turned the 'pedia into a battlefield then so be it!  I predict that with Salegi gone there will be a huge decrease in the drama (but I am still concerned about the SPA IPs that were editing in the Salegi style).  And, of course, anyone with Salegi's mix of cleverness, dishonesty and persistence will find his way back in.  It's only a matter of time.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 17:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fundamental difference (and yes, I'm pointedly ignoring the sniping above. Really, guys, please be civil to each other and treat each other as colleagues with whom you disagree, not enemies...) between ILIKEIT and my position is that I don't believe my own personal preferences are particularly important.  Rather, I think there are no less that three separate groups who all need to be taken into consideration:
 * 1) The editors who add material. Obviously, they add material because they care about it and want to share their enthusiasm for a topic.
 * 2) The editors who maintain material. They have an appropriate voice as well, and should not be inappropriately stuck fixing messes created by group 1... but still: they don't add content, just improve/clean it up. It's often a thankless job, and they deserve recognition, too.
 * 3) The readers. These are the people who get the shortest shrift in our conversations--indeed, we pay far too little attention to the popularity of our articles.  Really, we should be looking for things that are a) encyclopedic, b) popular, or c) some mix of both.  Keeping our readership up requires us to have good articles on topics that readers care about.  I've yet to see readers driven away because we had too much coverage of fiction--although pictures of genitalia or Mohammed do tend to alienate some readers.  Readers are the pool from which we draw our new editors--they are the lifeblood of groups 1 and 2. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem with this is, taken to the extremes I see people arguing for (and you seem to be in that camp), the "encyclopedia" becomes little more than a repository for minor facts about not even moderately significant material that a few editors express interest in. There has to be some standard, and the steps you outline above lead to little more than a small group of editors claiming "But WELIKEIT" and being able to keep articles that aren't actually notable. LHM 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the point, isn't it? Don't let it go to extremes. Use common sense and alternative objective measures--while there's a general pushback in that area, there is no good reason that we can't have alternative criteria besides notability (as it's currently construed) that demonstrate inclusion-worthiness. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point JC. My origins are from Category 3. I was a reader who began noticing little bits of improvement that could be done. That led me to become a user and then editor. I have now moved somewhat towards the first two groups. I agree that we need to have information that the readers will enjoy. That is why I focus on areas I know were interesting to me.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of ecologic seagoing boats
Hi JClemens; could you provide me the text of the article "Comparison of ecologic seagoing boats" ? I would like to see whether it contained any useful information; if so I can use it on another wiki.

User:KVDP (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Restored to User:KVDP/Comparison of ecologic seagoing boats, enjoy! Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for BLP/Undue weight Review on Jay Severin
Hi- I was referred to you by Collect as an editor with experience and interest in BLP issues. VERY briefly, I reviwed and heavily edited the article on Jay Severin. I made my intention clear on the talk page and recieved no input for six days so I changed the article to bring it in line with the BIO template, expanded the article to include missing information, and trimmed it to reduce undue weight on his controversial actions at a local Boston radio station (WTKK). Another editor has expressed great dissatisfaction with my actions. Rather than engaging in an edit war, I am asking that you and Off2RioRob compare the exiting article with the edits I made (an older version can be found here and make a few helpful comments, if possible. Thanks! TreacherousWays (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the undue weight tag, which has been restored. My problem has always been with the absurd amount of brand new unsourced material in the rewrite. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can get to tonight. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jclemens-public. Any criticisms you can make will be very welcome. TreacherousWays (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that Off2RioRob has already given his input in the form of edits. On a cursory glance at the article as he's edited it, it looks balanced and appropriate, given what I know of how media coverage gravitates to the outlandish.  It's still possible there's UNDUE there, but if anything, I suspect the proportion of RS coverage of Mr. Severin which applies to the controversial statements is probably greater than the space allotted to the discussion of those comments and their aftermath in the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reincarnation of a banned user?
Hi JC. I just wanted to get your opinion on the edits of this new IP. They seem eerily close to another user we had trouble with. Here is the link. If you look through you will notice they edited both Southern Adventist University and Ouachita Hills College in the same manner as a previously banned user. The same goes for their other edits all on SDA education institution articles. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's almost positively him. Revert all the contributions as a banned user, if you believe it appropriate.  Feel free to reference here. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear we're on the same page. I did revert, but I'm being careful due to my history of blocks and edit warring with said user. Thanks all.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have Jc's talkpage on my watchlist, I've gone ahead and reverted all of this IP's edits as that of banned User:BelloWello. LHM 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's back as 198.228.224.166 and 198.228.224.139 Mojoworker (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes thankfully Donald reverted the IP but we might need Pipim to be semi-protected for the short term.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire subnet can be reverted. Rather than waiting for me here (I have limited access to Wikipedia during the day at the moment), I suggest that suspicious new IP addresses editing SDA articles simply be reported via SPI, where the checkusers--whichever ones are around--can look at the underlying data and take appropriate action.  Otherwise, any admin can block an IP per WP:DUCK. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
I was just skimming around and wanted to say that I found this really cool. It put a smile on my face, thanks. --Yaksar (let's chat) 05:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Frank Rossitano
Hi, I'm the person who nominated this article for deletion. I was wondering if you would be willing to alter your decision to Keep/Merge instead of just keep as I believe it ends today or tomorrow and so far, you're the only person to be involved in any of the 6 articles I nominated from 30 Rock. If not, s'ok, I'd just rather have it merged, though I don't think much needs to really be merged, then stay in its current form until someone decides to bother with it (It has been tagged since 2007 in some cases).
 * stalking thru here: Those AFDs probably all need to be relisted due to lack of participation, and it would be nice if the other AfDs were mentioned on each AfDs, so you can see the nomination is really about all the minor characters on the show.--Milowent • talkblp-r  16:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, relisting would be an appropriate outcome... but if the nominator wants to withdraw, then editorially merge them all into a List of 30 Rock characters, that's a perfectly fine outcome, matches OUTCOMES, etc. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw and redirect you mean? If they remain inactive I'll do that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Sources
I've got another essay bubbling around in my head. Provisional title "original sources", which would be defined as...
 * 1) Primary sources,
 * 2) Which are currently available in their original format,
 * 3) Where time and distance from origin do not present any legitimate questions of authorship or content.
 * Thus, this would mostly encompass 19th century and more current creative works.
 * But why make this distinction? Because original works are those which any editor can, for perhaps a fee, acquire and review the primary source in question.  These are fundamentally different from pre-modern (or pre-Industrial revolution, if you prefer) writings.  As such, they are authoritative for their own content and citing an original source would be appropriately V for its own content, much like any self-published source would be.

Thoughts so far? Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured this would happen.
Policy-based arguments don't seem to matter. It seems like it's just how many voted for a particular outcome, and damn the policy arguments made. It's hard to call it anything but a "vote", when one side argues policy, and the other side argues that they like the article a lot. LHM 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (I apologize in advance for replying to my own post.) I guess what's most frustrating is that there's no explanation for the close from the closing administrator. It's just "the result was no consensus" and leave it at that. It would seem to me that more care and consideration would be taken with such a close, given that there were serious policy issues raised with regards to the article. Perhaps the next time, instead of arguing a nuanced position, as I did, a straight "delete" vote would be better, given that for many (maybe most?) AFD closing admins, this is just a simple vote? LHM 17:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As Jclemens once said: Use common sense and alternative objective measures--while there's a general pushback in that area, there is no good reason that we can't have alternative criteria besides notability (as it's currently construed) that demonstrate inclusion-worthiness. My advice to you, Lithistman, is that you spend your energies deleting material that is truly offensive: start with santorum, cum shot and the ejaculation video.  Stay away from articles like GYC which are interesting, informative,  inoffensive and add something positive to wikipedia, even though their notability, as strictly defined, is questionable.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 18:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to Jclemens: I told you they would misappropriate your statements as support for this article being kept. What Kenatipo writes here is nothing more than the WELIKEIT argument that was the only real argument presented at the AFD in favor of keeping it. LHM 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to LHM: "If there's one thing I'm not, it's a slave to established rules. Rather, the guidelines are there to do just that: guide. If I see something that's clearly within the scope of WP:5P, reading them broadly as a reader might, but yet prohibited, restricted, or excluded by another policy in a way for which I can't see an appropriate justification, then that's probably a "bug" in the rules. ... Taken to an extreme, that viewpoint would destroy much worthwhile content that readers expect to find here, because we are the authoritative encyclopedia for most things geek. Even when there's no real challenge to the popularity, commercial viability, or accuracy, some use "notability" as a criterion for attempts to restrict such material which ignores the reason it was put there in the first place: enough readers care about it for it to be worthwhile for us to write about it. Notability guidelines that deprive readers of topics serve no encyclopedic purpose, and there's no circular logic there, just a lack of slavish adherence to current implementation guidelines, which are buggy". —— Jclemens, circa 2011. --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are Kenatipo's actions here acceptable? LHM 20:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, they're not. K's not allowed to disagree with you. If he does then his actions are no longer "acceptable".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you'd classify Kenatipo's behavior above as simply disagreeing with me? That's not shocking to me. Even still, I asked Jclemens a question, and two editors who were part of the WELIKEIT movement at the AFD have now responded. This kind of proves the point of my initial post to Jc. LHM 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe thou dost protest too much oh LHM. Label me what thou likest. It maketh it neither more true nor false. I only responded on here because you asked a question about the actions of a fellow Wiki editor. Actions which while having some sarcasm, certainly are not illegal or "wrong". --Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to work with you guys. I didn't even recommend straight deletion at the AFD, but a far more nuanced position. You respond with snark and gloating? I guess I can't do anything about it, if that's the way you want to proceed, but it's certainly not very collegial. LHM 21:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't make me resurrect your ,shall we say, "imperfect" history of statements against various editors.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about, FVK? And why are you still trying to engage me in battle? I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. LHM 22:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay LHM. I will spell it out. First, I came here only because I noticed that you asked a question about the legitimacy of an editor's behavior. I read the discussion and thought you were way overreacting, so I responded (albeit with a bit of sarcasm). This led to some back and forth. Second, I am now only engaging you to remind you that are the Pot calling the kettle black. You have a history of doing more than trying to "work" with various editors. For example you repeatedly attacked a certain editor on his Talk page, and then tried to push him out of a discussion about the GYC Afd because of actions for which he self-reverted. Just remember to every debate there are 2 sides. Rarely is either entirely innocent and "collegial".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing you could possibly be talking about, would be when one editor edited my signed post at the AFD to make it look like I'd called the nominator something I had not called him. I've tried to remain collegial throughout this experience, and though it's sometimes been through proverbial gritted teeth, I feel like I've done that. LHM 22:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're tempting me to post your less than flattering statements you've made. I will resist. You should however remember that you are not perfect and have engaged in "battle" as well.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Post away. I stand by every statement I've made during this process, and have attempted to be fair-minded throughout. LHM 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room! Black Kite's not an inclusionist--I think that's a fair way of characterizing his stance on things, and I doubt he'd take issue with it. So when he says there's no consensus, he's more often than not closing an AfD against his own personal preference, but in line with the expressed wishes of the community, which is what all admins are supposed to do. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In an AFD where one side made policy-based recommendations, while the other did not, I just felt like at least a brief explanation would have been in order. And my main point was that I knew what was going to happen after you made those comments above about WP:Notability only being a guideline, and not a policy. Once you gave the imprimatur of legitimacy to WELIKEIT arguments, I knew that any chance of finding a middle ground merge (as I recommended) was over. LHM 22:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The closing admin is perfectly capable of telling me to pound sand. I don't have any special standing in AfD's by virtue of seniority or position--or rather, I shouldn't--because I wasn't selected to any sort of a special status.  I would hope that if my arguments are compelling it's because I have my own clear, internal view of what I believe the encyclopedia should become, and why overly narrow interpretations of inclusion criteria don't help reach that vision. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, members of the Arbitration Committee would not have special standing. However, this isn't an ideal world. As for WP:Notability being "only a guideline", and discounting it almost outright when enough editors like the subject of an article (this is how I read your position), I think this position is problematic. If there is no "bright line", then there's no way to truly argue for merging or deletion of any article other than super obvious ones. In the case of the GYFC article, for example, there are still no non-SDA sources supporting the content. According to what our community says about notability, that is perfectly fine if it's part of a larger article, which is why I recommended merging it. It's not fine for a stand-alone article, though, and I just can't seem to get my mind around how there's any other way to read our community standards regarding notability. I repeat, there's not even one non-SDA source in the article, even now. LHM 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the question really seems to be "are all SDA sources about an SDA organization inherently non-independent?" which seems to me a fair point for discussion. As far as I can tell, this right here is the first time I've actually commented on the nuances of this specific AfD, so regardless of the context of my other statements, I've really not taken a position for or against this particular article being kept. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be technically true, Jc, but it's not how your previous comments were viewed by either myself, or (apparently) the other editors at the AFD. As for the SDA-based sources, they're not third party. It would be like using Assembly of God magazines to "source" an article on a decent-sized conference put on by that denomination. It's just not acceptable. And when you look at what Acquire the Fire (a far larger and more established series of conferences) redirects to, the point is made all the more clear: there just isn't enough for a stand-alone article, though there is enough for inclusion in one of the larger, better-sourced SDA articles. LHM 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for interrupting but I just want to know what LHM considers to be a "better-sourced SDA article", since nearly all of them are sourced using what he calls "non-independent" sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Potential merge targets were outlined in the AFD. LHM 23:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironically they also are heavily sourced by what LHM calls "non-independent" sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As well as sources that are third-party sources, which the GYFC article doesn't have... LHM 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If the GYC article doesn't have "third party sources" then neither do the articles it is proposed to be merged with.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Deal. I will end my fighting.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More to the point... If you're looking for my quotes to use against other editors, I made another one a day or two ago when I said that the first duty of any editor was to get along with other good faith editors. Accept that you guys differ on specific interpretations of things, and go forth to work on things where you agree.  It's poor form to gloat when "winning" or sulk when "losing".  The goal here is not to win, but to build the best possible free, collaborative encyclopedia in the English language. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes JC. I haven't and don't plan to use your quotes against anyone. If I ever use quotes, it is only those of the individual themself. Yes collaboration I will certainly work towards.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sub-section for Jc and my conversation only
Note: I'm creating this sub-section to make it easier for Jc and I to have our conversation. LHM 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be technically true, Jc, but it's not how your previous comments were viewed by either myself, or (apparently) the other editors at the AFD. As for the SDA-based sources, they're not third party. It would be like using Assembly of God magazines to "source" an article on a decent-sized conference put on by that denomination. It's just not acceptable. And when you look at what Acquire the Fire (a far larger and more established series of conferences) redirects to, the point is made all the more clear: there just isn't enough for a stand-alone article, though there is enough for inclusion in one of the larger, better-sourced SDA articles. LHM 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So can you point to parts of WP:IS that would extend to all same denomination publications? If your interpretation is so clear-cut, you should be able to articulate how it's derived in ways that average editors find compelling. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about "average editors" who are -- as I was when I arrived -- utterly disinterested in SDA-related articles? If so, that link is chock full of support for merging the GYFC article to a larger one. Just one example:
 * An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject' and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. (emphasis added)
 * This is just one amongst several portions of that page that support merging the article, and work against using SDA sources as the sole references for a stand-alone article. LHM 00:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying each source quoted in the GYC article has a significant connection--that is, that publication benefits specifically--to the topic? Moreso than the general benefit a newspaper receives from increasing its ad revenue, more than Rolling Stone magazine gains from promoting the music industry in general?  There's where I think you might be building a bridge too far. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no comparison between an independent magazine covering an industry, and SDA-based periodicals covering an SDA conference. LHM 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've made an assertion, but how does this disagreement not devolve into a "yes it is" "no it isn't" sort of thing? What external, objective standard would you pose to differentiate these two sorts of self-interested coverage? Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In all of the "noise", I missed that you had responded. It's not simply a he said/(s)he said thing. There is a wide gulf between an independent publication like RS, which happens to cover the music industry, as well as other forms of popular culture, as well as politics, and magazines by, for, and about Seventh Day Adventists. LHM 03:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't see your assertion reaching above the middle layer of File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg... Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't see a prima facie difference between an independent music magazine covering an industry, and an SDA magazine covering the SDA? If that's where we find ourselves, then we're simply at an impasse. LHM 04:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Religious affiliation is insufficient. Are you asserting that the SDA has a combined ownership umbrella which both owns the magazines AND runs the events/programs?  I genuinely don't know this to be the case with any Christian denomination. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am asserting is that publications by, for, and about the SDA aren't sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG by themselves. If they were used in concert with some non-trivial coverage in true third-party sources, there would be no issue at all. Do you agree, though, that comparing those type of sources covering an SDA youth conference is not similar to Rolling Stone covering the music industry, pop culture, and politics? LHM 04:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So in order for that to be true, they need to fail some part of the WP:RS criteria, you seem to be focusing on independence, and I don't see them as sufficiently closely allied to lack independence for purposes of RS. If they are independent and hence reliable, then any 2 of them make a topic notable under the GNG, because there's no real concept of a semi-reliable source. Rolling Stone is one example of a domain-specific RS, but far from the only one. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe we're at an impasse, then. If you think that Adventist magazines are simply "domain specific" in the same way that Rolling Stone or Wired are to the fields they cover, then I'll never convince you otherwise. I find that claim to stretch credulity, but you seem to have made up your mind that it is the case, and I can't change it. (For the record, a much more analogous Rolling Stone-type magazine would be something like Christianity Today or something similar. A magazine controlled solely by members of one specific sect of Christianity simply is not far enough removed for anything resembling true independence.) LHM 04:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The good news is that this disagreement won't impact 99.9something% of what goes on in Wikipedia. I hope you can see, though, that this view is not something so clear-cut at contravening an existing policy that !voters who endorsed such a view would be roundly discounted by a closing admin at AfD.  Good editors can and do differ regularly--not only on what the guidelines and policies should say, but also what they actually mean. The ability to work with ambiguity is a strong predictor of editor success at Wikipedia, because regardless of any of our personal preferences, ambiguity is here in large abundance. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity certainly does exist in large abundance, as you say. I guess my only further point would be to question if you see any "bright line" for notability other than the obvious stuff like some 15-year-old's garage band that's never played a gig? LHM 05:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You know, I suppose I don't. There are clearly notable topics, clearly non-notable ones, and gray areas.  I think this legitimately falls into a gray area, but of the three sorts of notability issues, gray areas are really the smallest.  Most times, editors familiar with the guidelines can come to a consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit disappointed by that, because what ends up happening is an AFD discussion that devolves into "notability requires X" versus "but lots of people like it and want to have it here." It's ironic that I've been painted the deletionist here (not by you, but, well, you know), since I actually recommended merging and redirecting it, with intact history, which is far far different than deletion. I was arguing a nuanced position using a notability bright line, if that makes any sense at all. LHM 05:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you look into this and this. First, he reverts my addition of the "notability" tag on the GYFC article with an edit summary of "joining the edit war", then he makes a snarky post at my talk page, trying to bait me into a block. I've tried to be cordial during this process, but it's getting very difficult to remain so, Jc. LHM 00:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI I only engaged in 1 revert, unless yourself and Lionel who engaged in multiple reverts. The post at your talk page, was because you basically requested that I leave the discussion over here, so I did as you requested. Notice the title you put, I believe deliberately.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't handle this anymore, Jc. Now, Lionel and FVK are engaging in blatant tag-teaming, apparently because I have the temerity to still have concerns about the articles notability, and because I plan to propose a merge sometime soon. LHM 00:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FVK, please revert yourself. A "no consensus" close is not sufficient grounds to remove a notability tag. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JC, I was merely engaging in the edit which it appeared Lionel was right in doing. Notice there was some type of "edit war" behavior already occurring. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally it appears LHM may have violated WP:NPA with the charge of "tag-teaming".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting review.
Though we have disagreed above, I value your opinion, and--if you have the time--I'd really appreciate it if you could offer at least a brief response at the editor review I've opened for myself. (I completely understand if your AC obligations preclude this.) Best, LHM 04:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, ArbCom is still a mess, and I've got an RfA to author for a very well-qualified editor... Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I completely understand your needing to focus on other things. I just didn't want to not ask, given that I value well-focused dissenting opinions, which you seem to offer. Best, LHM 05:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Fedkiw
Can you explain this edit at Ronald Fedkiw.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure: I looked in the article, and didn't see anything that said he'd received screen credits for those three movies. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I see it. Nevermind.  Please do pay attention to the talk page notice, however. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comment. I'd like to do a three-way since I regularly watch the article. Furthermore, his efforts to change the article are against policy. The content that he has attempted to add have been AFDed at in the omniscient technology article discussions. Readding content is delicate in this regard. Check out that AFD before adding the content to WP.  However, I would love to talk to Ron again so let's set something up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have OTRS access? If not, I'm not sure how that would work.  Verifiable content can be added to any article, but that's not what his complaint is ostensibly about. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I have no access. Look at the content that an IP has been attempting to add since the AFD. Then we can get an understanding about what the issue is.  If I can not be involved that is fine.  I would like to be, but am not sure how it would work. Note I have page protected the article from the addition of the AFDed content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So I see the additions reverted, but that isn't what's being complained about--AfD'ed material has no special embargo against being put into other articles, though that does seem COATRACK and UNDUE to me. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * O.K. since I was involved in the AFD and have been involved in keeping the AFDed content out, fresh eyes would be welcome to the discussion. I am just saying that I would not mind being involved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whenever you feel this has gotten to a stable consensus version, let me know so that I can resume watching it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI
There was no way in hell I could unblock, but I reduced it, and I appreciate your full reasonings behind the block. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a week is probably in the middle range of fair. I wouldn't have objected to time served (i.e., 16ish hours or whatever) if the reviewing admin had felt that that was appropriate given his newfound level of insight. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your having dealt with the situation regarding Fvk. Though I expressed support for reducing the block, I wanted to make certain you know that I was in no way repudiating your actions in placing that block. While I support what Bwilkins has done in reducing it from 1 month to 1 week, I completely understood your reasoning, and wanted to make sure you knew that. Best, LHM 00:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me retrieve a suppressed article?
Hi there,

I had an article suppressed. I do not wish to have it re-published but would like the source/text of the article back for my own use/peace-of-mind.

I am not totally au fait with Wikipedia's systems but believe I need to contact an Oversighter to get the article back. I picked you at random :-)

The article in question would have been at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rose_(wikipedia_editor) - it was suppressed due to being a "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" which is untrue, but this isn't the place to discuss that.

If you can be of any help retrieving my text or pointing me at the correct procedure, that would be really great.

MTIA Nic Doye (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am another oversighter. Suppressed articles are not returned to their creators. In this case, the article you wrote has violated multiple Wikipedia policies. You may not have it back. Please do not continue to pursue this matter within the confines of Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker beat me to it. If you read my policies (linked above), I don't give G10's back. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post has now published [virtually the same article] even including the admittedly bizarre, pornography allegation, thus rather proving me right, and the judgement of it being a G10 wrong.

My article was not about Hari, but about the sockpuppet account he has been accused of using. Indeed the sockpuppet account in question has now been blocked: User:David_r_from_meth_productions - again proving me right.

I can not see why a suppressed article can not be returned to the author. It is surely there in the bit-bucket, and it is just a "punishment" not to return it. A punishment that I do not deserve, as I have not stated anything that is untrue or libellous. If I were such a person, would I use my real name and risk my own account?

Thank you for your time and patience on what is, in the grand scheme of things, a trivial matter, but for me, a matter of principle. Nic Doye (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Still no response on this despite another online publication - this time the Daily Maverick - printing the same accusations (bar the "erotic fiction" - for want of a better phrase).

As for the sock puppetry (the main point of the article), this has now been levelled against Hari on his *own* Wikipedia page (and no, not by me - I'm still only using my real name on the InterNet, like I have been since about 1992. I see no need for pseudonyms).

Apart from writing an article about a (now suspended) Wikipedia author (which I hadn't realised you couldn't do), I have not broken any of Wikipedia's guidelines. I could prove this if you would kindly supply me with the evidence, which so far, you have refused.

Nic Doye (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker here, Nic. If you wrote a pisser article, you best just sod off, you ain't getting relief from wikipedia admins if you didn't save a copy of your opus.--Milowent • talkblp-r  17:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Milowent, haven't you just broken Wikipedia's rules by telling me to "sod off"? Telling people to save their work elsewhere defeats the point of a Wiki. Perhaps you'd better look the meaning up. Do you have the evidence that my article was a "pisser"? I'd love to have that evidence. As you are not an Oversighter, I don't think you could have read it. Please restrict yourself to a) being polite b) talking about subjects you have knowledge of.

The fact is that no-one will let me prove my innocence. If I had the article, I could. Everything I wrote is true. I am not sitting here typing on poor JClemens' page for fun or just shouting off, I just want a constructive evidence-based reply and preferably the article back, for my own use.

If the police confiscated your phone, saying you'd made malicious calls from it, but you could prove your innocence if they handed it back, but they refused - you think you lived in a corrupt, police state. That is what I'm seeing here. Nic Doye (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * G10's will not ever be undeleted. You've been told.  If someone else put a similar article in a regular newspaper, then go get it there.  Don't take other words out of context, you were told "if you wrote a pisser then sod off" ... big emphasis on the "if", and clearly not against any policy.  However, what innocence are you trying to prove?  Are you banned from Wikipedia?  No.  Just let it drop, else WP:DISRUPT sneak into the equation. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you User:Bwilkins. I don't want the G10 (which it isn't, but you won't let me prove) published - I just want it for my own personal use. No Oversighter has said I can't have it back or that they never come back. It still contained the phrase "sod off" - don't hide behind weasel words. And thank you for waving WP:DISRUPT at me as another threat.

Basically - you're saying if one person misreads/hates/whatever your article, it can go immediately. If you ask for it back (your only way of proving it didn't violate rules) you will be ignored by those who could e-mail you it and threatened by those who do deign to respond. On the original editor's page I said this was in violation of my moral rights as asserted in the Creative Commons license, and was informed I was close to threatening legal action. WTF? You say that my repeated, ignored, yet reasonable request is disruption. If any Oversighter had ever listed (with proof) the violations in the article, or just bloody e-mailed me the poxy thing, this wouldn't have happened.

I am sad to conclude that Wikipedia far from being the open information of facts for the whole of humankind, in fact suffers from the problems inherent in all organisations run by people. Power corrupts.

I shall end this here. I am thoroughly disappointed. If you can not see what the problem is here, then you are the problem and eventually Wikipedia will either fail or fork. Do your best to ensure that this never happens.

Yours, Dr Nic Doye (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Since it's related to my discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), you might wanna weigh in at this AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, but I'm really not that much of a subject matter expert. All the musical acts I know tend to be well-covered in the Internet age. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

asking for indulgence
If the deadline for initial positions on the BLP case is, indeed, firm at one week, I would be unable to comply. I therefore ask that this be considered my initial statement. Thank you.


 * Tersely: A huge number of BLP example diffs have been provided over many Arbcom cases.  I doubt more evidence that the problem exists is needed.  User:Collect/BLP contains quotes from a former editor showing explicitly why some of the problem occurs.


 * Principle: The purpose of all articles, and especially BLPs, is to provide a "true portrait" of the subject. Adding horns or haloes does not improve the portrait, nor does adding material any editor has a special interest in, such as emphasizing the "nose" of the subject, as that is the making of a caricature.  Making neither miniatures nor ten-times scale portraits is in the interests of the project either.


 * Example of oversized portrait: .  Example of normal size portrait: .    Example of excessive emphasis on special interests:.


 * Further, that minor sins of the subject should, indeed, be treated as minor sins. Every person alive is capable of speeding, or making verbal gaffes,  or even of reading a book about Scientology.  Such is not the stuff, however, of a proper neutral biography.


 * Further, that opinions about the person, including categorization of the person as a matter of opinion, should be deprecated in any BLP. The portrait is not improved by by calling the person anything other than what he self-describes himself (or herself) as.  Labelling any subject with an opinion by someone who is critical of them, or by anyone with any special interest in labelling them, is intrinsically not neutral.   Opinions about positions of the person stated as such are clearly allowable.


 * Further, that political goals of any editor must be deprecated in regard to any edits which offer criticism of a public figure. It is better that an evil politician be under-tarred, than it is for most to be misrepresented in any manner whatever.


 * I would ask that the arbitrators apprise themselves of WP:PUFF and WP:PIECE as valid essays. I would hope that the committee would also ask the WMF to set up a task force on this issue should the committee not feel it has sufficient authority to take any strong actions.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am off to Alaska for a bit - hope this will at least be a strong placeholder. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part?
 * Yes, the above makes sense and will be considered appropriately when we get to the evidence page--I'll see that it's handled so. Jclemens (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Inre my POV tag AN/I
Your comment within the AN/I I initiated referencing the POV tag mirrors my perception on the POV use of "False Claims" as a header in the article itself. While, as I've asserted within the AN/I, it is not, IMHO, relevant to the issue about which I was seeking a determination, it is certainly most relevant to the article talk section I established to discuss my POV concerns. I would appreciate it if you would consider contributing your AN/I observation to that talk section. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can feel free to link to my ANI comment, but I intentionally avoid any contentious political articles that I'm not already inolved with. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well...but I can certainly empathize with your decision making. It ain't pretty out there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gilabrand
I am wondering if you can do anything to bring this discussion to a conclusion. Surely there has been enough comment for administrators to make a motion one way or another and to decide the matter. Not meaning to be pushy, but Wikimania is coming up, and I am sure that Gilabrand (who lives in Haifa) would like to participate as a full-fledged editor. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee proposed decision
Hi. In the MickMacNee proposed decision, you didn't vote on proposed remedy 3. Just checking whether you skipped it on purpose, or if it was inadvertent. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was waffling between oppose and abstain... and forgot to finalize it. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, but I appreciate when someone (usually Paul August) duns me when I leave something out, so I figured it was my turn to put my old Clerk hat back on for a minute. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Always appreciated, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on Arbitration
Jclemens, I have not been able to find instruction on how to provide feedback through the arbitration template so am communicating here. In the interests of clarification, which perhaps should have been more clearly stated in the "Illicit Drug Interventions" template, the issue is one of editor conduct ie that three editors claim that a consensus they have between them should overrule the third party input of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which on three of the four occasions has not supported them.

Of course I am all too happy to be directed to any alternate dispute resolution procedure or process that will resolve this dispute. Minphie (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read through all of WP:DR? If not, that's a great place to start. If so, what additional questions do you have? Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Might want to take a look
Since you were involved in the previous discussions on the same topic, you might be interested to join in this discussion. &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things I value about the community...
It's good to see things besides backlogs grow. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. The ability to joke around amicably with people whom you generally strongly disagree.
 * 2. Seeing editors grow and develop over time, ultimately increasing in their breadth, depth, and knowledge.  Such as when a newbie who annoyed me a few months ago by galumphing into BATTLEGROUND areas with all the grace of a bull in a china shop, now is making cogent, policy-based observations.

E-mail
I would really appreciate it if you wouldn’t just ignore my replies to your e-mail. Providing no response to certain questions is something I see from arbitrators pretty often, in response to both me and other editors, and I’ve never understood what editors are supposed to infer from it. It’s even happened after the arbitrator had told me ahead of time that they were available for me to ask them something, such as here.

Any of the times when this happens, if there’s something inappropriate about what I’m trying to ask, I’d like to just be told that. If the arbitrators have decided to not do anything in response to what I’m asking, or they don’t know the answer, I’d like to be told that also. Having silence as a response could mean any one of these things, and I’m not prophetic enough to be able to figure out which it is. Does ArbCom view it as beneficial to keep me in the dark about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The default presumption is that we're too busy and/or discussing it. Send me another email telling me which email you're referring to and I'll try to provide a more specific explanation in reply to that email. Jclemens (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I've done that. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha! NOW I know what you're talking about... will reply in email later tonight. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You’ll be getting back to me about this again, won’t you? I know I probably seem impatient now, but from what I’ve told you about my experience, you might be able to understand why after I’ve waited around a day for an admin to respond to me, I start to worry that they’ve forgotten about my request. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Will you be getting back to me about this again tonight? You told me on the 29th that you’d be available again Sunday evening. And as I said in my e-mail, there’s a disadvantage to postponing dealing with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

New Essay
You are not irreplaceable Comments welcome here or there. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at ANI :)
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that your name has been drawn into ANI in reference to the Marina Poplavskaya situation, since you're the agent working with her via OTRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's nice to be mentioned at ANI as a potential solution, rather than a part of a problem, eh? :-) I'll try and get back with her when I return from my evening engagement. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Amen. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Justin Bieber
You could add the Portuguese language in the Portal: Justin Bieber? Already have a portal in that language. Fernando Ferry (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Our correspondence
Can you please not just leave me hanging like this? You told me on the 29th that you’d be available again on Sunday, but I haven’t heard from you again since then. As I said in my original comment here, when an admin abruptly stops responding to me in a discussion, I’m never able to know what I’m supposed to conclude from that. If you’ve decided this topic doesn’t deserve your attention, then I’d like to just be told that, as long as you also explain why you changed your mind about whether it does.

You might remember there was something else I wanted to ask you, which isn’t related to the original topic. I think the second question will be a lot easier to answer. But if you’re not going to reply to my e-mails anymore, it won’t be possible for me to get an answer to my other question either. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The only conclusion you can draw is that I'm too busy to deal with your particular request. While I do make an effort to get to things in a timely manner, individual requests for Wikipedia efforts come after all other Wikipedia obligations, which in turn come after my family, school, and volunteer firefighting obligations--the latter of which are particularly unpredictable, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for explaining that. Do you have any prediction about when you’ll have more time to discuss things like this?  The issue I e-mailed you about initially might be stale by then, but I’d like to at least know when is a good time to ask you my other question. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied in email. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I’ve gone ahead and asked you my second question now, because it indirectly relates to the answer to what you were asking me.  Hopefully answering this question won’t require as much work from you as the first thing I asked.  The specific thing I’m requesting is something that I know ArbCom allows fairly often, even if my reasons for requesting it are different from most people’s.


 * This is the last thing I need right now, so once this last request is resolved I’ll be ready to stop nagging you. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that I’ve explained what it is that I’m looking for (a private hearing), as well as why I think that’s necessary, will you be getting back to me about this soon? I haven’t heard from you again since I explained this four days ago. As you might be aware, in the meantime this situation is beginning to escalate. In light of the new developments, ArbCom’s continued silence about it is starting to seem a little irresponsible.

If the answer is that the arbitrators are still discussing this issue and will get back to me about it soon, I’ll be satisfied with that answer. I’d just like some confirmation that they aren’t disregarding it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no discussion has been ongoing--although I have been noting the escalation with interest. You have not advanced any convincing argument that your appeal should be held in private. You are welcome to pursue it in public as desired, although I suggest that resolving the current issues with Mathsci is likely to play favorably into any appeal.  Even if you guys can't stand each other, if you can broker an agreement by which you agree to disagree and part from each other, that would reflect favorably.  Failing that, you may indeed want to seek sanctions on Mathsci.  It's your call. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, well, thanks for letting me know that the situation I’ve described isn’t a sufficient reason for a private appeal. I guess I’d better keep looking for a different way to resolve this.


 * I would really like to not have to interact with Mathsci anymore, but as I said in the clarification thread, my history with him makes me doubtful that he’d stay away from me voluntarily. I think that a large portion of the times when a new editor shows up on race articles who disagrees with him, or a sockpuppet from someone like Mikemikev or A.K. Nole, Mathsci is going to be convinced that somehow I’m the one responsible.  Is there any other kind of assistance that ArbCom could give me in ending this interminable conflict?


 * One other way ArbCom could help with this, which I’d really appreciate, is an interaction ban. It can be a mutual interaction ban, so that Mathsci and I are both prohibited from commenting on one another, if that’s what ArbCom thinks is best.  Does that seem like a reasonable request? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mutual interaction bans are more often handed down by the committee than at the request of one of the subjects, but that's not unprecedented. That would be a request for amendment to the prior case, and my gut says you'll find a lot more support for that than a lifting of sanctions given the recent history. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I’ll definitely want the conflict between me and Mathsci to be resolved before I attempt to appeal my topic ban, so I’m not going to be requesting that my sanction from the R&I case be lifted yet. Once this conflict is resolved, I think I’ll want to spend a few more months editing other articles before I make my appeal.


 * There’s currently a request for clarification open, and I was under the impression that ArbCom sometimes proposes new motions in response to those. For example, it was in response to a request for clarification that Mathsci’s topic ban was lifted in December, here.  Would it be possible for an interaction ban to be proposed in response to the current request for clarification?  For reasons that you can probably understand, the idea of what it will involve to post a new amendment thread that’s focused on Mathsci is not an idea that I like very much.


 * If the answer is that ArbCom can do that, I’d prefer if it could wait until the current AE thread involving Mathsci and Miradre is closed, because it’s possible that I’ll be getting what I’m hoping for in response to the AE thread, in which case a motion for an interaction ban won’t be necessary. But if AE doesn’t resolve this issue, I’m pretty sure that what I’d like is a motion for an interaction ban in the request for clarification.  Please let me know whether that’s possible. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Was it really necessary for you to follow him here? While I prefer my talk page to be a safe haven for anyone with a good faith problem, other parties to a dispute involving themselves just because one party is seeking advice here will tend to drag disputes here, which is unproductive, since my talk page is not a part of any formal dispute resolution process.  If I gave the impression that any of my advice is anything other than NPOV, then you have my apologies: by suggesting reasonable ways forward, it is not my intent to promise good outcomes or take sides in any dispute or process, merely to advise against objectively unhelpful courses of action when those are considered. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are undoubtedly right, so I have blanked my contribution. In the meantime, thinking about what you wrote here and what Sir Fozzie wrote on the ArbCom page, I realized that the best way forward was to withdraw the request for clarification. EdJohnston had already given an answer to the request in his contribution there; and everything else was just producing far more heat than light (in fact no light at all). Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Eng
Can you check if there was ever an article for "Kenneth Eng"? It seems to have been deleted, if so could you supply me with an archive of the article? Redhanker (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been deleted multiple times. Ask User:King of Hearts if you want a copy back, I'd suggest. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Hatton
Hi there, I'd like to create the page Tom Hatton (actor) who was previously deleted. The content is about the same person and it was suggested to contact the relevant user. I believe the page was initially deleted due to non-notable recognition on the subject's early work, however the subject has now received substantial global recognition for his work including and not limited to the Sony Production 'In The Qube'. I feel it would be of value to add a wikipedia page to the 60 million viewers who identify with the subject. Please could you advise. Hattock79 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the old version at Tom Hatton, so you can just add to and update that version. I recommend doing that promptly, else someone might nominate it for deletion again.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated it promptly regarding tone and references. Will the deletion message be able to be removed? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattock79 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you need to go describe what you've done at Articles for deletion/Tom Hatton. To be blunt, your input is unlikely to make any difference, because the nominator accrued 6+ other people looking at the past state of the article and suggesting it be deleted before you or anyone else started fixing any of the problems. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V, there was no consensus for the change you just restored
If your last edit at WP:V was intended to restore a stable version of the policy, this did not happen. Was it your intent to restore an edit to the "notability" section, one that I have previously reverted and discussed on the talk page? My request is that you restore WP:V to a stable version of the page. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point--although I still prefer the version to which I reverted than the immediately prior version. It's entirely within your rights to revert farther--I have no special status that would give my revisions more weight than anyone else's--although I tend not to revert multiple times on the same point without an intervening discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My attempts to restore stability have been disrupted by facts that are not in evidence. As it stands WP:V is destabilized and the discussion at WT:V is confounded; and there are ripple effects out on WP:N and WT:N.  I again request that you restore WP:V to a stable version of the page.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And on a different subject....
You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Also, there has been a suggestion for a possible name change. Maybe a contest? The caveat being that it must be simple and easy to remember, and give a clue to what the essay contains. I'm thinking maybe WP:Newcomer's guide to policy, guideline, and editing or WP:Newcomer's PG&E or WP:NGPGE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "Hitchhiker's guide to the guidelines"? :-) I'm sorry, but my activity will be substantially reduced for about six weeks starting this weekend, so while I skimmed it and it looks fine on a cursory glance, I won't have time to give you any better feedback. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the hunor in that title, and for those familar with Douglas Adams, the jouney through Wikipedia bears a striking resemblance (tossing in a little Doctor Who as well). Be well.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping RfM
You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to post some diffs and links to specific discussions? Has SilkTork been informed of your concern? Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A personal project
Is anyone out there interested in being a tough GA reviewer and working with me on getting the remaining Game of Thrones episode articles to GA, and the season to a Good Topic? I'm looking for someone who is not impressed with any offices or privileges I hold, and is willing to hold me to the same standards as any other television episode article would be. What I am looking for is someone who is able to be responsive and work with me on these. Of three episodes I nominated back in May, one episode was failed outright by a reviewer who has since retired (see the archives), and the other two are only now being reviewed three months after I nominated them. As an Arb, I have weird periods of inability to respond to GA issues, and other times when I can frantically fix a ton of issues. This is not very well aligned with the GA process, which gives me zero control over when and how articles are placed on hold. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job
Thank you. Maybe I was wrong for immediately removing those people instead marking them with template "citation needed". Of course, notability of some of those people is still a problem. I hope that we will successfully cooperate in the future. Regards.--'' В и к и в и н д  T a L k  00:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN, any editor can remove anything unsourced at any time, and BLP assertions are probably the best reason to do so. I wouldn't call what you did improper in any way, but I did see that most of that was probably easy to fix, and I had some time to kill before dinner, so I did it. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

afd
thanks for keeping after me--I seem to have not realized what the new references actually were. My error.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my response... but there's no offense to differing on what LOCAL should say. :-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion arbitration case
-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I expect this to be resolved one way or another within 24 hours. That its taken this long is grossly unacceptable and if it isn't resolved within 24 hours I will escalate the matter. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the banner at the top of this page. This was one of those weekends where my Internet access was not reliable.  I'll look into this in the next several hours, now that I've got Internet access again. Out of curiosity, to whom would you have escalated should I have remained unable to respond? Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So yes, I've looked into this, and indeed, Coren and I were asked by a clerk for an opinion on it, but neither one of us appears to have done anything on it. I don't remember seeing the notice, but a search turned it up in my mailboxes.  I'm inclined to add him, but that will cause a case schedule delay which is undesirable but apparently unavoidable.  I've emailed Coren, and we'll see what we come up with. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. I appreciate your talk page notice, but I did contact both of you and I felt after two weeks that it needed sorting quickly.
 * With regards to escalation I would have taken it to the arbitration committee as a whole to look at on their talk page. After the MickMacNee case I (along with the other contributors in good standing) had raised concerns about the committee's poor communication, and unfortunately this seems to have been another example. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You should have an answer tomorrow. As was noted in the Arbcom email leaks, the Arbcom-L mailing list is pretty badly suited for any number of things, including this one.  There have been proposals to use a CRM solution or OTRS to keep track of issues like this, where nothing will be skipped by default, and everything not explicitly marked as closed by an arb will stay visible... but those solutions aren't there yet. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You could just use the case talk pages as they were intended ;) - they allow you to close resolved stuff and keep track of what hasn't been done. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How the BLP decision may be viewed by some

 * Beware the BLP zealot: "The BLP zealot can often be found editing articles on BLPs (unsurprisingly), and roaming the BLP noticeboard looking for articles to subject to his zealotry. He engages in extensive revert-warring to remove any negative material, no matter how well sourced. He reports his enemies to the BLP noticeboard. The BLP zealot himself doesn't add material to the article—he only removes it. If the BLP zealot had his way, the article would say, in its entirety, "John Smith exists". The BLP zealot, while thinking he understands the BLP policy, has never added negative material compliant with the policy—because he has never added negative material at all—showing he only understands the policy in a deconstructive sense."

Is, I fear, the result of the BLP decision. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think so. The niche for the BLP zealot, as so termed, was set up years ago. Have you considered volunteering for OTRS?  It's a very interesting and eye-opening treatment.  You get (for example) emails from housewives who were porn stars years ago who beg you to de-link their real name from the article on their stage name.  That sort of thing gives one a different perspective on what BLP is about. On the whole, the "BLP problem" is not fixed, nor going away any time soon.  We've just enumerated one more way that it can be exacerbated, and told people to knock that off. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had nigh two decades with contractual responsibilities as a Wizop <g>, so I am unsure how well I would fit in at OTRS. I really would like ArbCom to do what fixing they can, as I fear the number of editors who share Will's, Writegeist's, and Wnt's attitudes apparent opinions as stated in the ArbCom pages will remain too large.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC) (emending as "attitudes" appears to have been misaprehended) Collect (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My perspective may be too far removed to understand exactly what problems you see--what do you want ArbCom to do? Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a minimum - specifically state that contentious claims about any person belong specifically in only the most appropriatr article, that inclusion of such claims in a large number of articles violates Wikipedia principles, and that links to contentious claims should be restricted by the community. Further, that where such claims are used to include a person in any political, religious or social group, that such use be deprecated. (the "cult" issue, in short) And that any categorization or identification of any person as belonging to such a group should not be based on opinions, but that Wikipedia, with regard to living people, uses facts and not opinions,  I am sure you could word this more elegantly, but this is in line with the WMF policy, as opposed to those who seem to feel BLPs are not to be strongly protected. Note that none of this is dependent on "SEO" or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect, you claim that several editors, including myself, have "attitudes", and now you say that there are "those who seem to feel BLPs are not to be strongly protected". I hope you are not referring to any of the named individuals. Insinuations like that are close to personal attacks, and I've had enough of them. As for the WMF's BLP policy, it can be found here: . I am sure that all of the people you named fully respect both the WMF and WP policies on living people. If you had evidence to the contrary you should have added it to the recent ArbCom case.   Will Beback    talk    08:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have emended to "apparent opinions as stated in the ArbCom pages" as I fear you misapprehended the meaning of "attitudes" as I intended it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Writegeist mentioned this discussion to me. My concern with telling people to knock off "SEO" (if that's what you mean) is that SEO hasn't been defined.  In the present talk page discussion about the case some people are starting to stake out the position that merely Wikilinking to an article can be some kind of "SEO", which to me is just ridiculous.  I think we have too many policies being used to Wikilawyer against coverage of topics that some people dislike, and unless "SEO" is tightly and technically defined, we will soon claims about it used in the same way.  For example, the decision about whether something is "SEO" or not should not be dependent on what the article is about. Wnt (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um -- where in this colloquy did I use any such acronym? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to restore lrtweetup G11 code.
I wanted to inquire about having the lrtweetup article restored. I'm unsure why it was deleted but as I see many tweetups with similar pages I'd like this article to be a resource of history and documentation of the group. I'll edit the article as needed to comply with expectations.

Thank you for the consideration

Tsudohnimh (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) @tsudo
 * Done, moved to User:Tsudohnimh/Lrtweetup. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Pineapple doughnut
Dear Jclemens.

I wanted to explain my article on pineapple doughnuts. In Australia pineapple doughnuts have something like iconic status, particularly in the pop culture of the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Many comedians, comics artists, etc made jokes about pineapple doughnuts and it seems to me that these things sometimes need explaining, particularly to non-Australians and younger Australians. Furthermore, Australian pineapple doughnuts are not merely ordinary doughnuts with pineapple icing. The ingredients, texture, size and method of preparation are very different. I would very much like to re-write the article (with a great many more references!) and re-submit it. It seems to me that I can make a case for it's notability. Morandir (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you need to give me the complete article name so I can find it. While I'm happy to restore it, I'm less inclined to go searching for it to restore... Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Franklin Lamb for deletion
As an admin with some experience in AFD's, you may be interested in this case:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Franklin Lamb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Franklin Lamb until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The only reason given for deletion is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines, a position taken by many in the deletion tally, yet here is an article which appears to have been posted on dozens of major and minor news websites and blogs which says that he a contributor on many notable newsites and television stations which have wikipedia articles about them: intifada-palestine.com ISRAEL WILL NOT COLLAPSE PEACEFULLY BUT IT WILL DISSOLVE: DR. FRANKLIN LAMB Interview by Kourosh Ziabari Dr. Franklin Lamb is Director of the Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Beirut-Washington DC, Board Member of The Sabra Shatila Foundation, and a volunteer with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Lebanon. ... As a Middle East expert and commentator, Dr. Lamb has appeared on Press TV, Al-Manar and several other media outlets. His articles and analyses have been published by Counter Punch, Veterans Today, Intifada Palestine, Electronic Intifada, Opinion Maker, Dissident Voice, Daily Star and Al Ahram....Dr. Franklin Lamb, political commentator, university professor and Middle East expert. Isn't deletion for notability meant for people who are primarily self-published, not authors who primarily appear in the alternative media? In addition, the claim that there is no coverage of him as a news subject is false as there are many stories of his being shot in Libya Redhanker (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Veronica Mars episodes
I was just following what WP:Television episodes says. "Articles for individual episodes should assert their notability and be fully verifiable", right? None of them were and they were even tagged as possibly not notable. The guideline point that outstading episoded can/should have individual articles, and that "If the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)". I am not saying that it's impossible that every episode is notable enough, but in wp.fr most of them were merged until sources could be provided. In wp.pt the same is happening.

Maddox (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't saying you did anything wrong per se--but that if you want to make an issue of it, I can go ahead and source them to that level. Veronica Mars is a very commented upon show, especially the first season, and based on what I found for The Wrath of Con, I'm sure all of them can be sourced adequately.  Wp.fr and wp.pt should have the best sources on French and Portugese TV shows, respectively.  I think the fact that an English language TV show episode has been redirected in another Wiki is not a particularly good indication that the same outcome should apply here: after all, expect most of the reception and commentary to be in the same language as the show.  FWIW, someone has tried nominating House episodes for deletion in order to force a redirect, which was roundly rejected on the basis that each individual episode met the GNG.  Veronica Mars is obviously off the air, but the sources in books and scholarly papers have been published by now.  I'll tackle the rest of them as I get time, although if you're interested in helping to do so, it needn't be me to do it--I'm sure you or other editors with more time can source them as well as I can. Unfortunately, the mundane tasks of bringing episodes up to current standards tend not to be very appealing to most editors, so those of us who don't mind doing it get slammed with more work that would be better off shared. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku
In response to your diff here, please acknowledge a question here. --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered there, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom candidacy for Re-election
As many of you know, I was elected to Arbcom in last December's election. At the time, I was both humbled to be selected, and glad that I was only obligated to serve a year, given my other obligations.

At this time, however, I am committing to seek reelection to ArbCom. It has been a very rough year, though probably not atypical among years, with a case of desysoping an individual on the basis of confidential evidence and then dealing with his attacks on us, almost immediately followed by the ArbCom-L leaks which strained the committee's nerves to an extent not displayed in public. This has taught me a couple of things about my performance in this role:
 * 1) I do believe I have demonstrated the temperament needed to handle disputes as a coach and overseer, rather than primarily as a participant and advocate.
 * 2) The stresses involved in serving on ArbCom have not affected my personal, family, educational, or employment to an extent that would cause me to step down at the end of my obligation.

But one of the main reasons I'm committing now to seeking re-election is the number of good arbitrators who are right now making their own decisions whether or not to seek a future term. I have great respect for my colleagues on the arbitration committee, both those veterans who have been serving on the committee before I joined it, and those who became freshman arbitrators alongside me. While it would be entirely possible for me to step down from the "hot seat" on ArbCom and continue to serve the project through functionary roles, I know two more things from firsthand experience:
 * The greater the turnover on ArbCom, the longer it takes us to get functioning smoothly again by bringing all the new members up to speed.
 * It takes a while to come up to speed on the history, procedures, tools, and expectations needed to be an effective arbitrator.

I believe I have executed exactly what I promised to do in my past candidacy: keep things running smoothly to the greatest extent possible, and serve the community rather than govern it. While I was mocked a bit by a voters' guide or two for my lack of ambition, especially in comparison to the other new candidates, since my election and appointment I've been a part of delivering incremental improvements in the face of serious external challenges. I have also come up to speed on so many things during this first year on the committee that I believe I am finally functioning at an optimum level of knowledge and skill as an arbitrator.

I would welcome the chance to once more serve with as many of the sitting arbitrators up for reelection as choose to run. It has been a pleasure to serve with such dedicated servants of the project. In my candidacy, I will be running alongside rather than against any of them, because the disagreements we have, be they in private or public, pale in comparison to the collaborative working relationship we have.

1) If there's an arb up for reelection that you'd like to see continued in office, please drop a note to that effect on the appropriate talk page. The feedback arbs get is rarely supportive, and a few kind words can go a long way toward letting them know that their service is appreciated. 2) If you plan to pose a question to me during the election, feel free to do so now. Due to my studies, my time availability may not be as much as I would like it to be during the election period, and would like to offer everyone the opportunity to have their questions answered and concerns addressed by submitting myself to an extended questioning period in advance of the official timeline. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What you can do

Sockpuppet investigations/Gusstrand
Hey. I left a question for you over at that case. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University
Just a quick request, can you restore the text that was removed by Ourlady on the article to put it where it was, so we can take it to the discussion page and decide from there. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Adventist_University&diff=448127004&oldid=448111091

Thanks...Simbagraphix (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason you can't copy it out of the article history and put it in the talk page? Everyone autoconfirmed should still be able to edit the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection of Talk:Southern Adventist University
Thanks for doing this as an emergency measure. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever it takes to make him bored and go find something else to do with his life. :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your advice.
I think the time’s come for me to request an interaction ban between myself and Mathsci from ArbCom. You approved of this idea when I suggested it to you a little while ago, but I’d like it if you could please give me some advice about how to go about it.

What I’d like to know is, if I want to request this, do I need to start an amendment request for the R&I case? Or is there another way to request something like this from ArbCom? I’m asking because I’m sure starting an amendment request is going to generate a lot of drama, which is something I’d rather avoid, but I’ll do it if it’s the only way this is possible.

I’d also like to make sure you don’t think requesting an amendment to the R&I case would be violating my topic ban. I don’t think my topic ban from that case is intended to prevent me from requesting an amendment to the case itself, but it would be nice to know that for certain before requesting one. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a request for amendment to the previous case would be the most appropriate place to ask for an interaction ban from ArbCom. Having said that, you'll want to "show cause" why that would be the best thing for the encyclopedia.  Obviously, the threshold is a good bit lower when you're asking for a mutual interaction ban vs. asking for another editor to be unilaterally sanctioned, but you'll still want to make a good case for it.  And no, no topic ban ever forbids an editor from requesting good-faith changes to sanctions in previous cases.  If such are really not welcome, what we end up with is either an outright ban (with a specified appeal time frame) or an appeals time-table on sanctions (e.g., "may be appealed after one year").  Does that clear things up appropriately? Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It does, thanks. I have one other question, though:


 * Mathsci and I have been in conflict with one another since March or April of 2010, and I think one of the main arguments in favor of an interaction ban is the quantity of conflict there’s been between us. If I try to summarize all of that in an amendment request, though, it’s going to be so long that I don’t think anyone on ArbCom will want to read it all.  When I’m trying to demonstrate something like this in an amendment request, what do you think is the best way to do that without it being too long to read easily? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You might provide a few recent example diffs, and then point to the venues where other interactions have taken place. No need to write a novel about it, but "because I want one" isn't any good, either. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you say around 1000 words is an appropriate length for something like this, or is that too long? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend being more succinct on words, but finding really good diffs. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you mind giving me a specific suggestion about what’s an appropriate length? I would really like to be able to do an adequate job describing the extent of this conflict, as well as the failed attempts that I (and a couple of arbitrators) have made at resolving it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I really can't. You want to write enough to describe the problems adequately, have enough diffs so that arbs can see your point substantiated, then quit before everyone is bored.  I think you're overthinking this, and I'm not going to write your appeal for you.  Be sincere, thorough, and terse and you'll be fine. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Maybe I’m not communicating this clearly, but the reason I care so much about making sure I do this the right way is because I really care about the conflict between me and Mathsci being ended, and I view an arbitration amendment as probably my last remaining option to accomplish that.  I don’t want to mess up my last chance at this.  But you’ve been very helpful with all of this, and I appreciate that a lot. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry to bother you about this again, but I guess there’s one more that I need to ask about it.

Mathsci has responded to this request about how I was predicting he would. Almost every sentence of his post contains some sort of misrepresentation, but each example of this would require a whole paragraph from me to explain what’s wrong with it. I’m going to choose an example at random to show what I mean, which is his claim that his involvement in R&I articles is limited to looking for sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Until Miradre was topic banned from these articles, Mathsci was among of the most heavily involved in content disputes with him, such as         –I don’t see how he could believe that the Pioneer Fund article is not part of the R&I topic area. As I said, that’s just one example chosen at random.

In order for me to demonstrate this about everything he’s saying there, my post in the amendment thread would have to be around three times as long as it is, and I know arbitrators wouldn’t want to read all of it. Yet if I just leave his post unresponded to, it’s going to create the impression that I have nothing to say in response to any of this. During the R&I arbitration case Mathsci used this strategy against user:Ludwigs2, who called it “wall-of-texting”, and he wasn’t able to figure out how to respond to it either. Can you give me any advice on what the proper way is to respond to something like this? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to raise objections to his behavior at the request page, not here. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The point I was making is that for the reason I mentioned, I can't figure out how I should respond to something like this. But I guess I can just say more or less the same thing there that I said here. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I’d appreciate you clarifying something that you said in the amendment thread. When you say that you don’t want to see any additional back-and-forth between me and Mathsci, does that mean I shouldn’t comment on the additional responses to me and Ferahgo that he posted earlier today, here and here? As I said in my initial response to him, I worry about what impression it’s going to create if I make it appear as though I have nothing to say in response to these things. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Source classification
I know you're busy, but I'd love to have you read through User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox_4 and let me know what you think. (Feel free to edit the page directly, or to leave comments on its talk page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks really good on first blush. My efforts (which I sketched together a bit last night) involve more like a taxonomy of the four aspects, describing various scenarios for the major ones, including thoughts on which would be best for notability or verification. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to look it over. I'm glad that it looks okay to you.  In the long term, I hope it will be one small lever to help move the community away from what you describe as the Boolean notion of reliability.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a resolution.
Hi Jclemens, sorry to bother you again. Hopefully, this’ll be the last time I need to ask you about this issue.

Most of the arbitrators commenting in my amendment thread seem to be hopeful that now that they’ve made it clear Mathsci should not be interacting with me anymore, he’s going to disengage. If the opinion of ArbCom is that an interaction ban isn’t necessary for that reason, I guess that’s okay. But moving forward, I would really like either some assurance that in another few months things aren’t going to go back to the way they were before, or some guidance on what I should do if that happens. I explained in Cool Hand Luke’s user talk here why I think this is a reasonable concern.

Coren suggested in the amendment thread that I be given permission to start an RFC about Mathsci if his behavior towards me doesn’t improve, but none of the other arbitrators have commented on that idea, and at present my topic ban doesn’t allow it. I’ve also tried yet again here to propose that Mathsci and I agree to leave each other alone, but he appears to be ignoring that proposal, and also rejecting a similar suggestion from Charles Matthews. I’m getting a very strong impression that if ArbCom decides to leave this issue alone beyond what they’ve said already, in another few months it’s going to back on their plate yet again.

Is there anything that you or the other arbitrators can do to make it more likely that the issue really will be permanently resolved this time, rather than just subsiding for a few months before it recurs? Requesting that Mathsci agree to my suggestion that we promise to leave each other alone is one thing that would be really helpful, as would following Coren’s suggestion that I be given permission to start an RFC about him if the problem continues. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got a better idea. How about you go through the last 6 months of Talk:Abortion archives for me, and email me diffs of every time you think someone has been unreasonably combatative or incivil?  That would do me a big help, and I promise that as long as you're just reviewing talk page diffs, MathSci will not bother you. Besides, I'm REALLY not looking forward to doing this 'til my eyes fall out. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really want me to do that? I can put some effort into that if you’d find it valuable, but I don’t feel like I’d be better at it than anyone else would be.  In general, I also tend to not like it when non-admins try to act as civility police, but I guess it’s different when an arbitrator is asking me to do it.


 * Look, I know how busy you are, and how difficult it is to be an arbitrator in general. I also really appreciate how responsive you tend to be—whenever I’ve asked one of the other arbitrators for advice about a complex issue like this, if I got a response at all, it’s usually taken over a week.  (That’s the main reason why I ask you about these things more often than anyone else.)  But in the long run, I think it’s going to save ArbCom time if they can put forth a little extra effort to make sure the issue between me and Mathsci really is resolved for good this time, so that there’s no danger of them having to deal with it again at a later point.


 * If what you’re saying is that you’re too busy to deal with this at the moment, that’s fine. The amendment thread isn’t going anywhere, as long as anything else the arbitrators have to say in it gets said before the thread is archived.  The only thing that I really care about is that I not be left hanging about this issue indefinitely.  Getting told that my request has been declined is always preferable over not getting an answer at all, as long as there’s an explanation about why it was. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: At the risk of losing my eyes, if it'll help, and if Captain Occam chooses to not volunteer his efforts, I offer to go through the Talk:Abortion archive numbers 41,42,43 (excluding the current talk page) and email you the 10-20 most incivil diffs from each page. Just give me the go ahead. aprock (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ferahgo and I have already gone through archives 41 to 43, and collected 10 diffs of comments that we think are uncivil. I appreciate your offer to help, but what would be most helpful is if you could search a later set of archives, so you don’t duplicate the same work that we’ve done already.


 * If you’re interested in helping out with this, I think it would be best for us to coordinate our effort somewhat, so that neither of us duplicates work that the other is doing. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aprock, if you want to go through and find the incivility on the talk pages and archives of Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion, that would be helpful, and splitting them up by articles should be easier to coordinate. Sanctions in this case are going to be handed down primarily based on conduct--edit warring and incivility--and not on the basis of whether someone shares a particular viewpoint on abortion.  The best any Wikipedia article can hope for is a set of polite editors who argue their case well because they honestly want to shine in their dialogue with their philosophical opponents. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll work on the archives over the last six months of Support for the legalization of abortion tonight. If Captain Occam or Ferahgo doesn't claim Opposition to the legalization of abortion by Monday, I'll work on it then. aprock (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Tickets

 * I closed these... but others have gone unresponded to for far longer. Is this a new reminder feature?  Is it configurable? Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya I know there are longer ones, but no this is me searching through manually (well it does the search for me) the "open tickets" that are not assigned to the system. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Ohconfucius
You should probably take a look at the discussion page of Ohconfucius. A lot of editors are upset with his script, and it might be enlightening for you to see how he is "handling" those complaints. Your concerns about him have proven to be well taken. 70.253.87.139 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC) You might also take a look at what he said here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOhconfucius%2Farchive20&action=historysubmit&diff=445817430&oldid=445784648, where he refused to be named a party to a new arbitration because it would torpedo his request to get some of the date delinking sanctions against himself eliminated. What did he have to hide? What did he actually hide? Some things to consider. 70.253.87.139 (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: abortion workshop
Sorry but you cannot expect editors notified of this weeks into it to have a baldy notion what actually is going on there, even after reading it. It seems to run all over the place, and the initial comments were not all that clear as to its goals. From removing propaganda it seems to have become more about removing editors. A point I have made before in discussion is that editors may have POVs even strong POVs and that not necessarily be detrimental to the discussion, provided those POVs are not pushed. Neutral editors are like hens teeth on this article. I openly acknowlege my POV, but I won't put up with accusations of being agenda driven (which is something else entirely and a very serious accusation) for a lot longer. I am piss-poor at editing as yet, I don't go out of my way to rack up most edits, it largely occurs due to re-factoring, or posting forgetting I wasn't signed in, then having to sign my post. A total pain in the arse I have been in that regard I admit. Thats been an annoyance to MastCell. I am going to apologise to him and move on to other editing in other topics for a while.DMSBel (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're saying several things here, but I'm not sure what sort of response you're looking for. Feel free to rephrase to pose direct, answerable questions to me if you desire. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's similiar to how I feel about the Abortion arb. If there was something directly to respond to. I have no idea what is required of me in regard to it, or where it is appropriate for me to respond, and particularly at what point - when asked or at any point? So far I see that one of the committee has suggested in regard to the image dispute, an RFC - something that I suggested at a very early stage. Do I get kudos for coming up, months in advance, with the suggestion of arbcom as to how to resolve that particular matter? Is the manner in which that suggestion was dismissed at the time I suggested it, going to be looked into? Do I have to submit evidence, or is that particular matter familiar to ARBCOM? DMSBel (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than trying to explain the process to you myself, I've asked an arbitration clerk to contact you and help explain the process. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Requesting your clarification here... Thanks for the response. Best. Wifione  Message 07:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Complaint from DMSBel
Why isn't OrangeMarlin permanently banned from this site? Along with his enablers. Arbcom will never regain its standing while it doesn't take action. You've wasted my time, and a load of other editors time, coming up with suggestions already presented. The issue is a conduct one, OrangeMarlin's conduct. If Arbcom doesnt ban him and his enablers (whethter Admin or editors), it will never have any credibility again. He is not indispensible, neither am I. Decide now, I am not reading any more of this verbiage from User:Objectivist. Arbcom has lost credibility, if it takes action now it might recover some of it. DMSBel (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. This belongs on the case talk page, not here. 2. Do you really think your wording and tone are optimum?  I would consider revising your approach when and if you decide to re-post this query there. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh sure its not "optimum". It reflects the current mood of an editor who close to utterly sick and tired of what is going on. Why is my confidence so low that posting it to the Arbcom in the most polite language would do any good? This is Arbcom's problem. Not mine. The most clear and obvious conduct issue has been OMs outright out-of-control behaviour. For instance his response to this Arbcom on his userpage. The general impression is that any sort of conduct is now tolerated, no matter how offensive it is. I don't have any more time to waste. Get it sorted. DMSBel (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * An Arbcom case is not necessary. Any user can be blocked or banned if they engage in the type of unrestrained abuse he has poured on other editors. I ignored the filthy diatribe he unleashed at me (and five other editors) some time ago. But his attitude has not changed a jot. He continues to game the system, mainly because he is allowed to. Arbcom is storing up an incredible amount of trouble for itself by ignoring this, and allowing it to be brushed under the rug. DMSBel (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You mistake slowness for inaction. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Untrue. There is no action that was not justified before this arbcom case. Read that a few times so you grasp it clearly. Its Admin inaction in the face of obvious misconduct that is the problem. He is playing Arbcom for a pack of fools.DMSBel (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I should add that he is doing this in a way the whole of wikipedia can see. Last night I looked back through some archived discussion on articles to try and find some editors with a pick of sense, only to find RETIRED, RETIRED, RETIRED, seen enough. That was several years ago. If Arbcom only deals with conduct issues, one has to question if it is doing its job.DMSBel (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Woodend Junior Football Club
The Woodend Junior Football Club is very much alive and well. It is a sporting body in a rural Victorian town. Can it please be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.137.70 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I don't understand why you're asking me, since I didn't delete it. WP:REFUND would be the best place to ask for that content back so you can improve it. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD Policy - Nomination of articles with only unreliable sources
I have started an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people asking if the BLPPROD policy should allow nomination of articles that contain only unreliable sources. Based on your edits to the policy page I thought you may be interested in commenting. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  04:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented there, thanks for the invite. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD G4 and "most recent" XfD
Hi. You may be interested in WT:Criteria for speedy deletion. Adding "most recent" to "deletion discussion" was proposed as a clarification, so I linked the discussions from a year ago: WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39 and User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. I know we differ on the interpretation, but I always am pleased with the collegiality implied when folks who disagree with me invite me to the discussion.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I thought that not letting you know would be a little rude, especially when linking to the draft in your user space. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Queries
Suppose that "Gnarphism" is a small religious, social or political movement, and is named after a living person "Jonathan Gnarph." Would allegations that the "Gnarphists" supported criminal activity ascribed to unnamed sources be at all possibly connected to "Jonathan Gnarph" as a charge requiring strong sources per WP:BLP, or is the group sufficiently distant from Mr. Gnarph that the charges do not impact on any living person? Would it make a difference if there were 50 Gnarphists (small group) or 2,000 Gnarphists (large group) in relation to the connection to a living person? Lastly, suppose an editor has a news search set up so that he sees every news article about "Gnarphism," and that his use thereof appears in each case to be to include allegations ascribed to unnamed sources - is that any indication that such an editor might have a possible excessive interest in the topic of "Jonathan Gnarph" and his religious, social or political followers? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should also ask whether an entire country named for a person, such as "Gnarphi Arabia", which is personally ruled by a member of the Gnarph family, would also come under BLP. And there's also the issue of whether doing research on a topic is evidence of "excess" interest. So many interesting queries.    Will Beback    talk    19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to reasonable hypothets ... I rather think keeping track of every single news article concerning "Gnarphism" is unusual unless the person has a specific over-riding interest in Gnarphism. If the interest is in any way economic, then that interest would be covered under WP:COI but I do not know if any current policy refers to someone who is just extraordinarily interested in a topic.  Might you have a suggestion, Will?  Collect (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Setting up a news notification takes about thirty seconds, while a trip to a library may take an hour. I don't think that going to a library to get a book on a topic represents "excess interest", so something which takes 1/120th of the time probably does not represent "excess interest" either. Would it be better if people who have not done any research edit articles, based simply on their personal opinions? I don't think so. Do you?   Will Beback    talk    20:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I find libraries to be nice places - and generally it does not take an hour to reach one. No - the question is "Would a person who sets up a continuing search on a pay service for a particular topic, and who regualrly edits on that topic, likely to have any problems keeping a neutral point of view, especially with regard to any BLP concerns?"  And that was the very last part of the query, so I have no idea why it conserns you so greatly, Will.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about a pay service? Is this really a hypothetical situation or are you asking this because of an actual editing situation? If so, the veils are distracting. As for "excess interest", you didn't answer whether you think it's a problem when Wikipedia editors research the topics they write about.   Will Beback    talk    21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there an actual question that requires a response from me in there? Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the first three lines set forth a specific question, although I fear Will's tangential discussion may have muddied the waters<g>.  This is related to the recent BLP decision, where this particular issue seems to have been treated slightly differently than in the Cirt decision where the concept of religious movements etc. appeared to have been clearly included.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

G4
Hi Jclemens. Would you take a look at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-visiting ban decision
At Tenmei banned for one year, you support a harsh sanction.

Please consider a less severe remedy in light of a wider contribution history which may have been overlooked -- see
 * User talk:Roger Davies#Thank you for writing something good
 * User:Newyorkbrad#Thank you for writing something good
 * GA, 2010 G-20 Toronto summit

In 2009, Roger Davies observed,
 * "I believe that Tenmei was trying to create an appropriate backdrop for later helpful and meaningful discussions ...."

The Senkaku issues were not simple; but there you have it.

Even this diff does not alter your judgment in this instance, I hope it will influence your thinking in other cases which arise in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

extending an invitation
You have level-headedness, knowledge, and experience that would be of great value to WikiProject Films, I am hoping you might visit WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 7 and toss your hat into the ring. And in a second note and not too unrelated not, perhaps you might like to slog through a very looong but quite inciteful and polite AFD at Articles for deletion/Dianne Burnett and close it. Opened on September 19, and relisted on September 26. I think I made a decent case for a redirect, to which the original delete opinions concurred later in the discussion. I personally found the discussion fruitful in that it inspired me to crete a new article (Jam (film)) for the project. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind invite, but I barely have time to discharge my duties as an arb. If I am not retained in the upcoming election, I may have time to edit more, but I don't think I will seek any other leadership position in the near future. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. Stay centered and keep up the good work. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Abortion timeline
Hey Jclemens. Hope I'm not being a bother, but I was just wondering if you had an updated timeline for when you planned to finalize the first draft of the Abortion proposed decision. Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we're going to post principles this weekend (as in, Sunday), with proposed FoFs, but I've been at a loss to process so much information about so many participants, so what I have been advised to do is just post alleged FoFs, and make the parties fill in the blanks with diffs, etc. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. If I can be of specific assistance, just let me know. Best, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My current plan is to try and get some of the provisional FoFs up, based on allegations made in the case, maybe Friday, and then solicit the community to substantiate or refute them. Once they're up, anyone can work on any of them, but I'm going to need the parallel processing, because going through the entire case area looking for problems, like I did with OM, is impossibly time consuming.  Now that I'm back home, however, I DO have substantially better network speed, suitable for plowing through diffs a good bit faster, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and I'm just not going to get this done before I leave for the weekend. I'm going to try for Sunday. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If "TBD" in your new section about me ends up changing, can you drop me a note on my talk page. I don't know how much time I'll have to edit in teh near future (broken computer, editing on a public computer right now). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. It would read differently, but there were some accusations against you in the post that MastCell reverted (see his section for details), which I have not made a high priority to investigate.  Apologies for the delays--I'm trying to be thorough AND fair, so while I don't really anticipate anything coming of the allegations, based on your history on the project, I haven't gone through and checked them out myself enough to write you out of consideration for sanctions just yet. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Explains in convincing detail how and why this multiply-sacntioned editor should be given an N+1th chance.
Could you explain "Explains in convincing detail how and why this multiply-sacntioned editor should be given an N+1th chance". As far as I'm aware (but I may have forgotten something) arbcomm has desysopped me (but that isn't relevant here) and imposed the ARBCC ban. Are you referring to something else? I assume you must be, from your language William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. A second deliberated sanction is concerning enough for me. Thanks for trying to be thorough, though. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help, but I am not conversant with the whys and wherefores of web traffic. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

GMT Games
I can't edit this article, but could someone fix the end of the first paragraph, "and is about to the produced." to read "and is about to BE produced."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazarshual (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

CKD Galbraith Article
Hello, I am witnessing an article that is (for a lack of a better way to put it) being persecuted by "User talk:Fastily". This administrator is persistently deleting this article without any suitable explanation, when I have asked for one. This admin also deleted the user who created the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GMcQ  CKD Galbraith is a new article and should be given the space and time to evolve. Can you help? Please note that I'm not involved with the creation of the article, but I did see it a few days ago, and now it is gone. Hackbinary (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can help you through the process--first, what is the given reason the article is being deleted? Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know exactly what the reasons are. It's just gone:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ckd_galbraith  and the user who first posted it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GMcQ&action=edit&redlink=1  I was trying to add some references to the page, but now it is just gone.   This is a very frustrating process to get an article put onto wikipedia. Hackbinary (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm headed off for the evening. I'll look in tomorrow Hackbinary (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should clarify, I am not the original poster, but saw an article about CKD Galbraith a week or two ago in the metro about new letting and renting rule in Scotland. If I can't update a developing article, what point is the participating in wikipedia? Hackbinary (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again, it seems that the CKD Galbraith article has disappeared into a black hole, as does the user page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GMcQ, could you please advise on what has happened to it? Hackbinary (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion in one place, and refrain from forum shopping Thanks,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Improvements in the Nato.0+55+3d article
Hi Jclemens, I recently made some edits to the Nato.0+55+3d article, trying to make it less confusing and more easy to read. Since you added the and  tags, could you have a look and estimate if it has been sufficiently clarified ? --1904.CC (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I really won't have time to look at this anytime soon. However, if you believe you've addressed the issues, I'm OK with you taking out the tags. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I will do so. IMO the article is now reasonably clear, and as neutral as it can be. I will leave a note on the discussion page. --1904.CC (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your best advice
I am needing some advice relating to an arbitration request which was denied back in early August here. At that time the suggestion was made that " For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try Wikiquette alerts, and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a Request for Comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)"

At that time I communicated concerns about serious conduct problems re User:Steinberger and in trying to move ahead as a first step, contacted another contributor, Dala11a here who had faced some of these same conduct issues back in 2008 on the understanding that a Request for Comment on user conduct must be brought by at least two contributors. Incidentally, it was you yourself who intervened in an issue between Dala11a and Steinberger in 2008, where you added third party input here which Steinberger heeded for a time but then discarded in 2010 by thereafter constantly deleting text from the same source you commented on at that time. However, Dalla11a has not agreed to join me in lodging this Request for Comment - in fact I have not been able to get an answer from him/her here.

What should be my next step with Wikipedia re serious conduct issues? In my request to Dala11a I enumerated the issues - 1. Constant deletion of reliable sources 2. Long history of deletion of large slabs of undisputed text not amenable to his/her view 3. Contesting reliability of source once its reliability has been established 4. Ignoring third-party input 5. Disruptive cite-tagging 6. Edit-warring as per fully referenced text to Dala11a here. Mediation does not seem appropriate because conduct is either right or wrong, requiring adjudication rather than mediation. But I am open to the best advice. Could you please advise. Minphie (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to find another editor who's had a similar problem was a good call--sorry it didn't work out for you. Based on the issues described (And I haven't had time to familiarize myself with the content issues. In case you haven't noticed, this is my first Wikipedia edit in a couple of days) you might want to seek another neutral third party to help out at WP:RSN, and see if an uninvolved editor with an interest in proper sourcing sees things your way. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of the conduct issues being the primary concern, moreso than the reliability of the source, which is secondary, do you know of any instances where a Request for Comment on User Conduct has been lodged by a single user? Appreciate if you have knowledge on this. Minphie (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not. If no one else has taken up your complaint, you can always draft one and see what happens... but if no one supports it, it doesn't go anywhere despite your work. On the other hand, nothing is ever truly thrown away on-wiki, such that it could form the nucleus of a new complaint if the issues continue. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Gh87's TV prods
I've restored the histories and talk pages of all his prods related to The O.C. season 4. I was at first reluctant to do this because I tend to agree with you when in comes to TV episodes of otherwise notable shows but this is PROD and articles deleted by PROD are suppose to be restored upon request. As a matter of fact, in most cases I don't see a problem with an admin restoring a PRODed article himself if he wishes to contest it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. I don't see a problem either with doing it myself--PROD is easy go, easy come back--except that I am super swamped with ARBCOM work right now. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hi J, I have a question. I and other participants in the TM arbcom have sandboxes with auxiliary evidence, that are/were linked to the evidence page for that case. What is the policy for such pages? If there is no clear policy, than is there a place I can post the question for the Committee to consider? many thanks, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WT:ARBCOM is probably a better place to ask. I haven't dealt with historical remnants like that before.  I suppose they can probably be blanked, or deleted U1, since the decision shouldn't be linking to auxiliary pages--diffs should be to the mainspace edits in contention. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse
I found it a little troubling that you scolded RAP for his incivility, but let the comments by others pass, especially given that Moni3 at one point went so far as to say "fuck civility". I've been trying to keep the conversation on-point and the tone moderate, but frankly as far as I'm concerned at least three of the contributors there have behaved somewhat inappropriately; I don't think it's prudent to scold one while letting the others' comments pass. Doniago (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Really?
I'm surprised you only put Rusted AutoParts on notice here. Moni's behavior is terrible, why have you ignored it? I left her a warning.--v/r - TP 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was. I considered making it mutual, but decided against it.  One of the nice thing about putting someone "on notice" is that it also removes me from actually having to block anyone, though. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning here...
In your vote on WMC's request here, it would be helpful if you could clarify your reasoning. It looks like you're punishing WMC because you dislike the behaviour of other parties to the case (and other individuals who have commented on his request, or who are involved in the topic area); I hope that that wasn't your intent, but it is difficult to read your "group of people" and "public tug-of-war" comments any other way.

You also wrote about "lifting sanctions" (actually, just a reduction) sending "a particularly bad message". Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? WMC was sanctioned by the ArbCom. After he has spent nearly a year without causing trouble, and continued to contribute extensively and positively to the project, he has asked for another chance to edit in an area where he has personal expertise, with the awareness that his conduct will be closely monitored. This is not an instance where a troublemaker has been subject to multiple topic bans and returned to disrupt the project after the expiry of each. Is "the ArbCom admits that it is possible for editors to reform their behaviour" really such a terrible message? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC) *ping* I'm not sure if you saw that I had left this message; I'm still hoping you'll take the time to clarify, elaborate on, or revise your comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Though the motion has been resolved, I was still hoping you might elaborate on your reasoning...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think my inquiry may once again be timely, as the ArbCom has been asked to consider a related motion, and it is not unlikely that a number of similar requests might be forthcoming. I think it would be helpful for you to illuminate for me and for the community the factors that you weighed in reaching the decision on the motion concerning WMC, and how those might apply more broadly to other applicants seeking to have their topic bans modified or lifted. In particular, I hope you could touch on how you use the conduct of other editors (editors other than the one seeking relief from a remedy) to guide your decision-making, as well as what sort of "messages" the ArbCom ought to be sending to the individuals seeking a loosening of a restriction (as well as to the broader community). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AdminHelp - Is this thing on?. Thank you. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a lot of text. I don't see any reason to pop in there, but if anyone has a question they'd like me to answer, I'm available. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea (wasn't really following it, and not involved in it at all)... I just noticed people weren't notified, suggested it there, and SandyGeorgia and I went about notifying those who were not. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 05:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of amusing, actually, that an offhanded "shape up!" remark generated that much interest, and that no one prior to you had even bothered to notify me of the bonfire I'd inadvertently sparked. As anyone can see from my contribution history, I've not been very active on-wiki as of late, (been wordsmithing the accursed Abortion proposed decision more than actually doing anything fun...) and I don't regularly read ANI anyway, so I might have missed it entirely had you not seen fit to mention it to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We now have some procedural wrangling at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse. Please can you help advise on the best way forward. Warden (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Odds are that I will have some time to look into this in 14ish hours. For now, if everyone can be polite and source things like they should have been all along, and agree to a reasonable pace for doing so, there shouldn't need to be any more issues. Jclemens (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)