User talk:Jclemens/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Since you asked

at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed decision #"Last-ditch effort to avoid sanction":

• "To whom are you addressing that last?"

Here's my response:

• "Ashley, I've been thinking about publishing another story on Examiner about your potential banning on Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee. Then, I'm seeing WebCitation pages related to a Twitter account called ..." - Kohs, 20 July 2012.

If you can't see the damage that can be caused to actual human beings by failing to protect a reasonable degree of privacy, then I'd suggest you're not really suited to acting in a role where those sort of considerations are important. You may wish to step down and allow us to elect a replacement Arbitrator who is able to display a little more empathy with real people. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you just post another person's private email without their permission? Is this suppose to reflect your genuine concerns about other people's privacy? Or is it "privacy for those I like, no privacy for those I don't like" kind of thing? Or did you get permission from Greg?

Also, according to Greg, the part of his statement from the (private) email which you cut off is precisely the part where he says he won't be writing anything about this for the Examiner. The part you quote is supposedly just a rhetorical lead in (As in "I was thinking about doing x, but I decided against it - you cut off the "I decided against it" part) If Greg is telling the truth, then you're not just being a hypocrite but also purposefully and dishonestly misrepresenting Greg.

May I suggest that given all that you're not really suited for the role of WMUK trustee, where considerations of lack-of-hypocrisy and lack-of-dishonesty are important? You may wish to step down and be replaced.VolunteerMarek 06:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure Marek, you're most welcome to come and stand against me at the next WMUK elections where we can contrast your record in trolling with my contributions to the Wikimedia projects. I call bullshit on your claim of privilege of privacy [redacted comments relating to Kohs, see below] I quoted an extremely short snippet - would you like to quote the entire email so everyone can see just how [redacted comments relating to Kohs, see below] he can be? --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If I follow, Doug Taylor ("Rexxs") a trustee of Wikimedia UK, has just said it's ok to violate others privacy when they are "bad people" and refused to defend himself against a clear charge of misrepresentation when given the opportunity to do so. And in a public forum no less. Cool.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No Bali, the editor RexxS made the comment, nobody else. I edit here as Rexx the nobody, not as anybody else. Jack reckons you're one of the good guys, so I'll take you seriously. Tell me whether you really believe that a victim of harassment mustn't disclose the content of emails that his harasser sends him? Surely you can see that is an entirely unworkable definition of "email privacy"? I want to see us actively defending anyone who suffers from harassment, not protecting the perpetrator under a smoke screen of feigned offence. You cool with that? --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr Taylor: You are begging the question. Mr. Koh's email to Mr. Van Haeften was not "harassment." You chose to misrepresent the nature and content of that email here for reasons that are known only to you. But I and others have had reasonable efforts to deal with the content problems caused by Mr. Van Haeften over many years described as "harassment" and "stalking" and "homophobic" and various other crimes. He also implied that I and others were creating threats of physical harm to him by pointing out he didn't respect the privacy and reputation of people covered in Wikipedia articles. It hurt our feelings. I didn't believe it then, and I certainly don't believe it now. These were manipulative tactics and nothing more. I'm done putting up with the bush league insinuations. Mr. Van Haeften's hypocrisy has been a principal problem for him. Demanding that various confidences be kept, pictures deleted out of process (on a website that does not extend those same courtesies to "nobodies"), and written information suppressed. These demands were frequently heeded. Now, a supporter of his (Doug Taylor, Wikimedia UK trustee along with Mr. Van Haeften) says it's ok to publicly share private emails (never mind that it's against wikipedia's so-called policies) if the emails in question are from "bad 'uns." Mr. Van Haeften also sought to have his various online handles ("Fae," Speedoguy," "Ticaro," "Ash," etc. etc.) and his actual name (which he disclosed voluntarily as a Wikimedia UK trustee) intellectually sequestered from one another, an absurdity that you're also pursuing (for reasons in this instance that are unclear to me). Rexxs=Doug Taylor is a fact you've voluntarily disclosed, and certainly a relevant one since it implies a close personal relationship with Van Haeften (since you're on the board together). In short, you are just the latest example of the "for thee but not for me" mindset that is so prevalent among senior members of Wikimedia projects.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's ok, you can call me Rexx, I'm a very informal old dinosaur. I have no concerns over my privacy, so I don't need to keep a secret identity as some other unfortunate editors have to. Nevertheless, I have edited here as RexxS for the very reason that Essjay didn't: my discourse will stand on the strength of my arguments, not on claims about my personal accomplishments.

Let me set you straight about a few things: I met Fae for the first time a couple of months ago, and have no "close personal relationship" with him. I do however have a strong sense of when injustice has occurred and the treatment of Fae by Kohs and his ilk is disgusting to me. I would feel the same way about any other human being that was subjected to the treatment that Fae has received from more than one external attack-site.

I misrepresent nothing here and if you're actually the decent guy that Jack claims you are, and you saw the email that Kohs sent, I'd expect you to be as offended as I was.

If by "senior members of Wikimedia", you are referring to my advanced years, then I admit it, but question its relevance. If you're suggesting I hold some sort of editorial seniority on any project, then a quick look at my user rights would have been sufficient to disabuse you of that notion. I'd have expected better from an investigative journalist, but I assume you're having to look at everything through the filter of WR/WO. You can do better; you can criticise the projects from the side of the angels without selling your soul to the folks over there. --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Taylor -- You're senior because you're a trustee at Wikimedia UK. As for the condescending babble about selling souls, your "expectations" of me and the rest, it's evidence that your epistemic closure is about as advanced as I would have expected from a trustee at Wikimedia UK. I was driven from contributing to Wikipedia by its absurdities (and by people like you). I was essentially told that I'm precisely the wrong sort of person to write and shape a general encyclopedia. I have been lectured at by 18-year-olds about how to conduct research, and by middle-aged computer programmers on the most elegant way to present controversial topics in simple prose. This was funny for a short while. But the charm faded. I'm at wikipediocracy because it's a forum for unfettered criticism (unfettered criticism is ruthlessly, if unevenly, suppressed on all Wikimedia-owned projects). As I said, you seem to be a bog-standard Wikipedia hypocrite. So it goes. I'll leave the last word to you if you want it.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your blame is pointed in the wrong direction. I wasn't the one who published allegedly private material on other sites. I wasn't the one who allegedly published private photographs to Commons. I wasn't the one who edited Wikipedia using various names connected to those allegedly embarrassing activities. And that's just for openers.

I wasn't the one who used Flickr in a way that was dubbed "flicker washing", or engaged in other activities that brought scrutiny on my older Commons accounts and uploads. I wasn't the one who made a partial disclosure of my history to a then-arbitrator and now-retired former ombudsman which misled them to not oppose an RfA under a new name. I wasn't the one who got myself elected to WMUK, or WCA, knowing that all these skeletons were in my closet and deceptions were in my past. I wasn't the one who had a conversation with a paid WMF staffer at an event where my attendance was paid for by a WMF-related charity of which I was currently an officer, and, during that conversation, asked that WMF staffer to get the committee to intervene and change the outcome in a pending disciplinary process against me. I wasn't the one who also instructed a Commons admin to not cooperate with an Arbcom investigation. I wasn't the one who lied about my interactions with the WMF staffer and Commons admin.

Oh, and I wasn't the one who cried "harassment!" at every opportunity, all the while reverting homophobic slurs back on to my talk page.

So I agree, there's a lot of blame for what's happened to Fae. Unfortunately for Fae, the blame seems to fall most directly and squarely on him. There was clearly harassment, of course, but while a certain amount of errors could be attributed to legitimate privacy concerns, the long-term pattern of deception aimed at the community in general and specifically those investigating complaints against him is simply not excusable based on real or imagined harassment.

Likewise, there are plenty of ways to avoid scrutiny of one's past actions, but they are not compatible with future editing of an open, collaborative, reputation-based project like this. For now, Fae has a six-month hiatus in which he can attempt to deal with whatever real privacy concerns may exist, before an appeal. You see, the committee has given Fae room to actually deal with his privacy, which is a far more humane and privacy-supporting outcome than what Fae had chosen for himself to this point. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you protest you are not. For what it's worth, Fae only asked a WMF staffer for advice about his legitimate privacy concerns that you seemed so keen to be trampling over. My take on what happened is worth at least as much as your version, since mine is no more than second-hand. Fae wasn't lying, and for the sake of decent treatment of others, you really ought to think twice before you make that kind of accusation with nothing more than your own opinion to back it up.

On the other hand, you are the one who wants to see all of Fae's previous accounts laid out in public for folks [redacted, see below] to use as leads [redacted, see below]. Is it too much to expect an arbitrator to at least avoid acting as an enabler for that? --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The other side of that conversation came from the horse - so to speak - so Jonathan's version is first hand. And I have to say that if Fae had been honest about other accounts to start with, we wouldn't be here now. Its the attempt to keep a lid on it that has blown up in his face far worse than anything he actually did to start with. If Fae really has anything still private in real life, not connected to the project, that revealing another sock account would expose, his best bet has always been to email Arbcom and explain the problem. Which I can confirm he hasn't done so far, he's just tried to find a way to conceal the information from everyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who initiated the conversation between Fae, a WMF-related charity chapter officer, and the WMF staffer, the entire topic of Fae's impending sanctions was inappropriate. A hallway "can you scratch my back?" conversation provides unparallelled opportunities for misuse of influence. A random user "asking X for advice" is very different than the WCA chair-elect doing so; the random user has no way to benefit or harm the Foundation any more than anyone else in the world, while the WCA chair-elect has any number of reasons why a WMF staffer might be inclined to intervene on his behalf. It appears as though a number of commentators just haven't had sufficient real-world business ethics and conflict of interest training to understand why the minute the topic came up in that conversation, banning Fae from the project became the only appropriate response consistent with open and fair dealing.

As far as public disclosure goes, I don't really have a preference between full disclosure and retirement. Fae's the one who has to judge the best way to clean up the mess he's made. The ball, with a six month built-in delay, is in his court. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I think your statements above should have been included in the "official" decision. Cla68 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can only speak for myself, rather than for the entire committee. The above perspective is not shared by all of the committee, certainly not in nuance and detail. I think we all agree with Elen that the entire situation was escalated regrettably through repeated poor choices, though that could be said of most ArbCom cases. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With all due respect, Elen - and you know I have considerable respect for you - Jclemens was not present for the conversation and his assertions can never be first-hand. I have spoken with Fae, but I have heard nothing but silence from Philippe, so I hope you will excuse me for drawing my own conclusions. I do accept that you may have unstated reasons to draw your own conclusions. Given the problems of leakage from ArbCom, I would have preferred to see Fae disclose everything that had privacy implications to a mutually acceptable respected member of the community (a bureaucrat has already offered to help if requested). Nevertheless, if you feel that it is important he discloses directly to ArbCom, I'm prepared to trust your judgement and I have now offered him my strong recommendation to email you. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Meh, yes. If you heard it from one party and Jonathan from the other, that puts you on equal footing. I do think it's important Fae flags up the actual problem with someone. He is welcome to email me with details of anything that hasn't turned up yet that would cause him real life difficulties, and I'll see what can be done. I couldn't support publicising something that might cause significant real life problems that haven't come out yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS note: I've redacted some comments in the above section after the subject (a banned editor) contacted OTRS with a complaint (ticket: 2012072310002615). The comments stood in violation of our WP:BLP policy which require us not to voice contentious opinions about named living people in any venue on the project. I communicated privately to both parties that this appears to be a personal dispute relating to content published on an external site and that it is inappropriate to comment about it here. This comment is not intended to "side" with either party. Arbcom are, or will soon be, aware of the details relating to this. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, RexxS

You're a WMUK trustee, and you just asked an en.wiki ArbCom member to resign? Granted, you didn't explicitly state that you were in your initial request, nor does your user page list that affiliation, but you've just confirmed on this page that you are. I plead ignorance on WMUK matters--I appreciate the various fundraising efforts that WM-related charities do, but my job is unconnected with them.

I would suggest that interference in the affairs of the project was the culminating problem that led to Fae's ban. I know that all the arbitrators, regardless of our personal opinions on the matter, have scrupulously avoided commenting on WMUK's internal workings. It seems unfortunate that the reciprocal courtesy has not been observed. I believe an intentional and total operational separation between the charities supporting Wikimedia projects and the community-elected dispute resolution bodies of those projects is an excellent idea, and it never occurred to me that anyone would think differently. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, Jonathan, that it is vital to totally separate the charities supporting Wikimedia projects and the community-elected dispute resolution bodies. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer, but my comments here belong to the editor RexxS who has a long history of criticism of ArbCom decisions - from the WP:ARBDATE wars through the trials of Jack Merridew to the present day - your colleagues can confirm that. I am an editor in good standing and I hope you're not suggesting that I should be disenfranchised from commentary because I happen to have taken on a particular role in real life? I never claim privilege because of any of my numerous external affiliations, and you should be quite confident in ignoring a mere peon like me if you disagree with my analysis - it's all part of the rough-and-tumble of discourse on-wiki and is not to be taken personally. I am happy to be a nobody here; whatever arguments I make must stand on their own merits, not on any appeal to the authority of my username (it has none!). It really is merely the nobody who asked you to consider your position or your empathy. I trust that mollifies your concerns, but please feel free to suggest any way in which I could make my position clearer. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For your collection

		The Original Barnstar
		For excellent work on the controversial Fae case. Nobody agrees with every decision anyone made in that fiasco, but you demonstrated an intelligent approach and obviously were not about to be bullied by anyone. Thanks for your service. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I also commend you for the clear amount of effort and time you spent on this case (although I still think the extraneous stuff should have been relegated to a second case if needed rather than muddying up the main case). Collect (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A TPS offer...

Now that the most cumulatively stressful three cases I've dealt with in my ArbCom tenure have closed, I want to extend an offer to my TPS'es: Let me know what GA candidate articles you have to review, and I'll try to get to a few of them before the next storm hits. Last time, I did a bunch of GANs myself, but I prefer to switch up how I keep in touch with the day-to-day process of encylopedia building. This is a time-limited offer based on my current real-world availability, so let me know what you've already nominated, or are prepared to nominate. Since I'm not a fan of quick-fails, and I'd actually rather read imperfect articles rather than superbly polished ones, don't worry about minor imperfections. I really prefer the GA review process to be a collaborative, back-and-forth process where the reviewer actually coaches the nominator to greater (or more rapid) success than he or she would have independently achieved. So... what shall I review for you? Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite, since it looks like no one else has yet. I'm getting close to nominating WTF?! hopefully later this week. Just taking a quick glance at it, what do you think? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on my work schedule Sun/Mon/Tues are the days when I'll have time to sit down and do this. But yes, you're the first. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one else is jumping on the offer for free reviews, and I appreciate it. I officially nominated it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Done and on hold. Strong work, just wanted to see the lead longer. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I made some changes and added a note to the review. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Done and passed. Anyone else want a review? This offer is good until my Wikipedia obligations or availability change... Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, someone needs to nominate a real stinker. That was far too easy. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Quite interesting editorspage you´ve got... I was wondering if you are able to overlay my username into WP:ALIVE I did some excellent research about the ¨2012¨ phenomenom.. Regards, Vince V.R.Laar (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh, what? Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate personal attack

This was inappropriate. Do not accuse someone of WP:IDHT when consensus agrees with them, that's the opposite of WP:IDHT. Do not suggest someone is similar to "banned sockpuppetteers" without any evidence, this is a personal attack. You are arguing against consensus, suggesting that anyone that disagrees with you has an WP:IDHT issue and "reminds you of some banned sockpuppetteers". This is inappropriate, inaccurate, and disruptive. Please stop. Even if it was accurate and constructive, is it really necessary? - SudoGhost 02:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it bother you if one or more of the people arguing your side of the debate were, in fact, reincarnations of banned sockmasters? There are a number of such editors, including Otto4711 whom I haven't caught a sock of lately, who repeatedly return in different guises and relentlessly AfD fictional topics until exposed and blocked. That looks to me like what's happening here. I may be wrong, but I suspect I'm not. Do you think I should recruit an impartial checkuser to look into everyone who advocates positions similar to Otto4711 and his various socks, in order to clear the air?

You see, when someone who's done nearly four years of sock blocking says "This smells like a sock-influenced debate", that's not a personal attack, just an observation. If there was a specific accusation against an individual to be made, it would be made, validated, and the sockpuppetteer blocked. You assert that consensus is on your side, and I would like to be able to agree to that, but there's too much similarity with previous sock attacks on fictional topics to let the apparent WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stand unchallenged. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's a personal attack, and a shallow and baseless one at that. Specifically an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence. It would bother me if "one or more of the people arguing either side of the debate were, in fact, reincarnations of banned sockmasters". It's happened plenty of times. Did I run my mouth and throw accusations around without making half an attempt to confirm my suspicions? No. I opened an SPI and let the result speak for me. "I'd like to believe you have a consensus, but I'd rather make baseless personal attacks in order to ignore that consensus" doesn't fly, and your use of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was also pretty pointless, there is no overriding community consensus on a wider scale, so referring to that section of the policy had no point. - SudoGhost 03:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There you go again... You keep saying the same thing again. And again. And probably again. Pretending that saying "This debate smells similar to sock-influenced ones I've been in before" is a personal attack is unhelpful and unproductive. To be perfectly clear: I decline to apologize for my statement as a personal attack... because it wasn't. But to be honest, that's another tactic that socks of Otto4711 have used before, who protested to high heaven that they were NOT socks, and merely suggesting so was a personal attack... until they were blocked as socks. Again, correlation is not causation, but I'm not feeling spontaneously convinced that my characterization of the tactics in use here is inaccurate. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, enlighten me. What part of WP:IDHT am I doing? Where is this consensus that I'm ignoring? Or do you not even read things you link? And yes, how dare I suggest that making accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence is a personal attack! Good thing there's not some policy I was getting that from. This is the last time I'm going to ask, please stop making ad hominem attacks against other editors. If you think I'm a sockpuppet or sockmaster or what have you, then put up or shut up. - SudoGhost 03:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that saying "something smells sockpuppetish" is an attack, please review wikt:personal, specifically definition 2. I have accused no one of anything, I said so above, and yet you continue to harp on the notion that this is somehow impermissible. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy trumps your personal interpretation of a wiktionary entry. Suggesting that this "I'm not saying your a sockpuppet, I'm just saying..." crap is wikilawyering. It's a personal attack, and even if it were true, what part of "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is that supposed to be fulfilling? I'm asking you to please comment on content, not on the contributor, and to leave sockpuppet accusations out of it unless an SPI has confirmed it. Please. - SudoGhost 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have commented on content--repeatedly, and in multiple places. Want a recap? TSR and Wizards are independent of each other, Wizards is secondary, Pathfinder and company are independent of them both and secondary, and thus we have plenty of independent, reliable, secondary sources. The widespread refusal of others, including yourself, to listen to my comments on the content is what makes me suspect that there may be a good faith problem here. At any rate, we're done: you've said your peace, and rather than inquiring what would prompt me to say that the debate reminds me of previous ones poisoned by sockpuppetry, you attempt to frame my observation as the problem. As far as I'm concerned, there's simply nothing further to say on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the contributor. It's not "if you do one you can do the other". Your statements above about TSR, et al. were rejected by consensus in multiple places (such as RSN, and AfDs), but you accuse me of WP:IDHT, and not agreeing with you is a "good faith problem"? You've cited WP:IDHT multiple times now, so I'll assume you've read "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." This is not an WP:IDHT issue. If I'm wrong, then by all means please provide me a link or diff to a consensus that says otherwise. Since apparently it was removed due to an edit conflict I'll ask one more time just to cover my bases: where is this consensus that I'm ignoring, that is causing you to accuse me of WP:IDHT multiple times? - SudoGhost 04:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost 04:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Pathfinder Bestiaries

Hi Jclemens,

I was working out one of the sources with Sangrolu on their talk page (see discussion) during the recent death watch beetle AFD. However, the AFD closed before we could reach a conclusion and thus it wasn't really addressed on the AFD page, although Sangrolu did tie it to the caryatid column which was removed from the AFD as a result. Sangrolu hasn't been active in a few days, and since you were the main other person advocating for sources, I figured I would ask you about this. Sangrolu was initially concerned that the PF Bestiaries were just edits of Tome of Horrors material, but I have concluded that they are most likely completely separate conversions of the same TSR material. I still need to make one more comparison to be 100% certain, but I don't doubt that it will match my conclusions. Given that one article was removed from the AFD as a result, and that the two withdrawn articles would also have been affected as well as about 10 others (all of which would have both ToH and PF as a source at that point), I am wondering how the AFD would have played out if we had gotten a chance to address this series as a source. I don't know if you have any of the PF Bestiaries, or any of the ToH editions, but even if you don't I'd still like to hear your thoughts. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you believe in good faith you have sufficient sources such that the AfD outcome no longer applies, you can un-redirect the specific articles and add the sources. However, just in case someone reverts you, I would recommend first adding the content to the merge target, and THEN un-redirecting. Note that several editors have been rather aggressively disputing that this sort of coverage amounts to sufficient reliable, independent sourcing. Be sure to be impeccably polite and never edit war when there are such disagreements--all the better to keep them focused on content, rather than conduct. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will give that some thought. I expect that any such efforts would meet with aggressive dispute; notice that even the adherer, brownie, and caryatid column were redirected even though they were withdrawn from the AFD. I will make sure my sources are in order first. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, DreamGuy seems to have been aggressively redirecting it despite it being withdrawn from the AfD, against the closing: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the closing administrator clearly accepted that the struck-through articles had been withdrawn from the AfD, I have gone back and reimplemented his closing lack of redirection for them. It was rather unfortunate that another participant saw fit to do that. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've been following this and have said nothing before, discussion doesn't hurt, but seeing the direction this seems to be taking, I have to say a few things.

• First, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) did happen. The consensus in this AfD determined that OGL/D20 campain settings and bestiaries intended for use in D&D -even from other publishers than TSR/WotC- and other RPGs (that includes Tome of Horrors and the Pathfinder bestiaries), don't match the criteria in WP:GNG and thus can't be used to establish notability. Such a strong consensus (which is not just "several editors disputing that this sort of coverage amounts to sufficient reliable, independent sourcing") cannot be ignored, and I don't think it is a good idea for Jclemens to encourage IP to restore the articles using the very kind of sources that has been rejected in the AfD. If such unilateral restoration happened, I guess many users who took part in the AfD would see it as a disruptive move, particularly so shortly after the AfD. Discussing article sourcing is OK, but rushing to restore articles with arguments that have clearly been rejected by the AfD consensus is not. Please take into consideration the consensus that was reached and don't undermine its importance.

• Second, the articles Adherer, Brownie and Caryatid column have been withdrawn from the AfD as a gesture of appeasment between the two parties. It was not in any way an admission that the sources added gave notability to the article, as SudoGhost repeatedly explained [1]. Don't assume that you could restore the article using these sources, or that the outcome would have been different, as the consensus reached in the AfD clearly rejected them. Also, as the withdrawal was not related to an acceptable level of sourcing, it is perfectly acceptable for these articles to be boldly redirected, as DreamGuy did.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While it is acceptable to make such redirects as an editorial matter, citing the AfD as cause to do so is inaccurate and de facto disruptive editing/gaming the system. The articles were noted by the closer as withdrawn from the AfD, but twice per article--initially and in reverting BOZ--DreamGuy acted as if the AfD closer had included them. They've now apparently been reverted to redirect yet again by The Red Pen of Doom, with a reference to a page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Next step regarding non-notable_creatures where he says "If anyone objects to a redirect we can have another AFD with a list of articles" and yet edit wars to reassert the redirect. Shameful conduct, really. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To respond to your earlier point, while you may want the closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) to be a ringing endorsement of your interpretation of notability, it is nothing of the sort. In fact, it appears that the closer specifically discarded arguments that "there's too much to do in one week!", despite the volunteers actually finding sufficient sources for three of the many articles in that time. In fact, the closing statement invites un-redirection should any similar sources be found for the redirected articles; that's a far cry from a ringing endorsement of your position, even if I disagree with the closer about the relevance of pleas for dissimilar articles needing more time to locate individual sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing here requiring a response.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I didn't think I would have to remind you that AfDs are not head counts, they are decided on the strength of arguments. AfD outcomes reflect the consensus reached in the discussion, they are not supervotes from admins whose personal opinion on the matter would be placed above all others, but merely a sum up and validation of the participants' rough consensus (except when said consensus would clearly be against policies and guidelines). So, since the AfD outcome followed our recommendations and our rationales to redirect, of course it is a "ringing endorsement of [our] interpretation of notability". Claiming the outcome was solely based on the discarding of certain "keep" arguments and that the closing admin didn't find any strength in our "redirect" arguments is either pure fallacy or the sign of a serious misunderstanding of the way AfDs work. I also don't know where you have seen that, certainly not in the closing rationale at least, but no volonteer actually found "sufficient sources for three of the many articles in that time". If you're referring to the 3 withdrawn articles, as I have said, they were so as a gesture of appeasment between the two parties. It was not in any way an admission that the sources added gave notability to the article, actually SudoGhost specifically maintained that these articles still did not pass GNG [2] and I agree with him (and apparently so do several other users who saw fit to redirect the articles). The closing admin only acknowledged the withdrawal, and this wasn't an admission of notability either, the closing admin is not responsible for nominations, only for assessing consensus for articles still nominated at the time of closure. As such, the closing admin made no reference whatsoever (and couldn't have made any) to "similar sources" (that is, those in the 3 withdrawn articles). What the closing admin upheld was the consensus that the articles were not notable on the grounds that campain settings and bestiaries are not secondary independent. Of course, while you're entitled to disagree at a personal level, at the editorial level it is your duty to respect the consensus (especially since you're an admin), and as I said earlier, further encouraging other editors to override the consensus reached in the AfD while not adressing the issues it raised (campain settings and the likes are not secondary independent) would be perceived as disruptive, again especially coming from an admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the sources I have to the three articles which were removed from the AFD, and also to Deva (Dungeons & Dragons), hydroloth, dergholoth, and piscoloth, which were never at AFD but have been edit-warred over repeatedly. I'm expecting an ugly reprisal of some sort for adding sources in good faith, a kind of response which is normally backwards thinking isn't it? I'm not even going to attempt to edit the rest that were redirected as a result of the AFD because I am defenseless against a gang of thugs. Thanks for your help anyway, it is appreciated. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

to the IP, as the AfD concluded, mere existence in game products does not suffice to meet WP:N requirments of basing the article upon significant coverage about the subject in third party reliable sources. So, yes you should stop taking actions that violate the consensus reading of policy.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You said those articles should be taken to AfD separately if someone disagreed. Editors are not only disagreeing, they're both reverting the redirect and adding more sources. If they had been deleted in AfD, the changes would be sufficient to avoid G4, so what makes it permissible to edit war to return these three articles, or any non-AfD'ed articles, to redirects even in the absence of an AfD finding? Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, make sure that you're adding the sourcing to the merge target first, and then un-redirecting. As I've pointed out above, there's no real justification for the edit warring, but that has yet to stop the people interested in doing it. Also, if you can make the merge targets more specific (e.g., Deva just goes to the whole angels article), then please do so while you're improving things. It shows you're interested in actual encyclopedic presentation of information, and willingness to work within limits you disagree with. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you just meant I should do that on articles which were legitimately redirected per AFD, which none of these were. It’s a crazy world where people think I need warnings on my talk page just for adding sources! The last thing I am trying to do is causing trouble, but "trouble" seems to keep finding me. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those warnings aren't legitimate, but that won't stop people from adding them. You're an IP address, which means everyone else is more equal than you are in a reputation-based system like Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those warnings are legtimiate, there is a consensus and IP seems determined not to follow it. This behavior has to stop. I haven't seen the IP trying to engage in a discussion with others (except, of course, with a carefully selected minority) on the nature of sources before unilaterally restoring the article while consensus is obviously in favor of redirecting the majority of D&D monsters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can't help address the concerns of editors posting here for help, then please stop posting yourself. An AfD outcome is not a prior restraint on editors un-redirecting once sourcing is found and added, which is precisely what the IP has been doing. Furthermore, un-redirecting is exactly what the closing statement recommended once sources were found. If you want to be helpful, how about going through the redirected articles that were endorsed by the AfD closing administrator, and merging the content into their target articles, and helping make sure the redirects are targeted to the most appropriate sections? That would go a long way toward demonstrating that you're interested in encyclopedic coverage of the topic, even if your definition and mine of encyclopedic coverage may differ. Interested? Jclemens (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't restore an article using a type of sources that has specifically been rejected by consensus in AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please show me where the closing administrator endorsed your view regarding the consensus of sources. Don't equivocate, draw inferences, or read things into what was said--he either said "the sorts of sourcing advocated by keep !voters was inadequate" or he did not. Failing that... please show me a redirected article that you've merged as a demonstration of your good faith in the matter if you want me to keep responding to your posts on this topic. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you wanna play this game...Implying the closing admin would have redirected without supporting the very reason why the articles would have to be redirected is ridiculous, but since you require precise elements: please show me where the closing administrator endorsed your view regarding the validity of sources. Don't equivocate, draw inferences, or read things into what was said--he either said "the sorts of sourcing advocated by keep !voters was adequate" or he did not. I don't have to prove my good faith to you since you're the one trying to deny the consensus, I won't be the one accused of disruption for not respecting the consensus...nevertheless: [3] Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that first step. To answer your question, he did not, but I never said that he did. The correct view of the closing statement, in my opinion, is that he didn't answer the question, and for any party to claim victory on that point is to read something into the statement which simply isn't there. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In that you're right, but then again, AfD outcomes reflect the consensus reached in the discussion, as I tried to explain before, the closure is not supposed to reflect the admin's own opinion on the matter, but to say to which side went the consensus, with the exception of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Per that, had the admin found that our "interpretation" of WP:GNG was going against the guideline itself, he could have closed on "keep" or "no consensus". He did not. Any further discussion about this would imply that, baring obvious contradictions to policies or bad faith arguments, closing an AfD would be more a matter of the closer's personal opinion/"supervoting" rather than merely reading the actual consensus reached by participants. Whether the closing admin outright said he supported this or that view on sourcing is irrelevant, he was there to assess which way the consensus went, and to check if it wasn't a blatant violation of policy. He said the consensus went to redirection, and redirection arguments were made on the grounds that sourcebooks are not valid sources to establish notability. I'm afraid that's all there is to it, and while you're entitled to disagree, it would be better for you to favor discussion over attempts to circumvent the consensus, which only lead to more edit-warring.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If the admin had thought the local consensus was that the sources were inadequate, he could have said that. He didn't. You're trying to infer something that wasn't there even though it could have been. And you keep writing, saying many things that depend on the disputed proposition, which is sometimes called textwalling. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely sticking to what an AfD outcome is supposed to be. Say what you will, some of the articles also had the primary source on D&D Tome of Horrors, and primary sources on several other RPGs, and got redirected nonethless. I'll leave it to you to call the closing admin an incompetent, then.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I added the PF sources to the articles and then redirected them properly, in case there are any questions about what I have done. Therefore, I'm considering the matter of the 20 articles redirected as a result of the AFD a closed matter, and will leave them be as redirects unless more sources are found - and I am not looking for any more sources at this time or any time soon. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction to your attribution

Multiple times you have attributed ""If anyone objects to a redirect we can have another AFD with a list of articles." to me. However, that is not my statement. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right; my apologies. Other than acknowledging I mistook who said what, what other corrective action do you believe appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No futher action required other than to attribute it appropriately in the future. Thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note about Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.2FIndia-Pakistan

[4] Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject D&D

I've been following the "discussions" there. And while I haven't commented... (I'm weary of banging my head against the anti-fictional content wall.) Someday I may write up something clarifying primary sources and perhaps even explain to the fancruft hordes what "indiscriminate" actually means. (This not even going into the ridiculous immediate dismissal of any source discussing fictional content as "biased" or disreputable.)

Anyway, the reason I'm dropping you this note is moral support. I think you've said a few unfortunate things out of frustration (which also seem to have been misunderstood in intent), but as far as your arguments, I think you're spot on. - jc37 19:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, if you have any moral support to spare, I'll take some! My small but growing fan club is ornery and always willing to drop love notes on my talk page. ;) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the words, but realize that much of the "anti-fictional content wall" I have dealt with over the years has later been proven to have been socks of community-banned users. I don't say "this reminds me of sock-tainted discussions" for any other reason than it reminds me of sock-tainted discussions--that is, multiple, real discussions over the past four years that have been later proven to have been substantially supported by socks of editors like Otto4711. There's nothing wrong with saying the truth in such a non-accusatory manner, and I think it telling that instead of saying "what am I doing that resembles how community-banned socks argue?" at least one of the editors tried to portray me as the problem... which got him nowhere at ANI, and I took the moral high ground by not pointing out that calling a non-personal attack a personal attack is, in fact, itself a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Put up or shut the fuck up, and fucking drop it. There is a great deal wrong with accusing people of such things because it's fucking pointless, it's not constructive, and does no good to anyone. I have asked "what am I doing that resembles how community-banned socks argue", and the answer to that question is "Jclemens doesn't like what's being said". - SudoGhost 00:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're unable to remain civil on my talk page, please refrain from posting here. If I've missed where you actually engaged with my critique of the argument styles involved, then I'd welcome a pointer to it. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of "civility" leaves much to be desired. If you are unable to refer to another editor without making baseless accusations, then do not refer to them. You were told at ANI to drop it. Do so. Unless you can demonstrate that I am a sockpuppet/sockmaster, then there is no point in even stating that you are "being reminded" of one. You're reminded of one. Great, I'm happy for you. Does that mean you need to constantly state this whenever you can? No. You can reminiscence all you'd like, but unless you have some point to this, some actionable thing that will result from it, there's absolutely no reason to keep going around making ignorant and shallow statements about things you're "reminded" of. Unless you intend to act on this "reminder", there's no point in saying this except to draw attention away from the actual discussion. - SudoGhost 01:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Swearing is definitely not civil - may I suggest you take a wikibreak, SudoGhost?--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So long as Jclemens stops with this baseless "I'm reminded of a sockpuppet" crap, I'll have no problems. It's all well and fine that you're reminded of a sockpuppet, Jclemens. But unless you plan to do something about it, letting everyone know about it does no good whatsoever (if anything, it would hurt your ability to discover a sockpuppet, as they'd be more aware to watch what they say and to ensure that they leave less evidence). Saying that someone reminds you of a sockpuppet does no good to anyone; it doesn't help resolve a discussion and it doesn't help support your position. All it does is aggravate things and causes problems while solving none. I am not a sockpuppet. If you think I am, open an SPI. Otherwise, please stop this. It isn't pleasant, and it doesn't do a bit of good to anyone. - SudoGhost 01:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said that anyone in particular reminded me of a sockpuppet. To the extent that you've made such an inference, you are incorrect. I've said this before, but you continue to take umbrage at something which you have incorrectly assumed is solely or primarily directed at you. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And so what would be the point of saying "something" reminds you of a sockpuppet then, if you can't attribute this "something" to anyone or anything in particular ? What does it bring to the discussion ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To cause good faith contributors to pause and say "Wait, what on earth am I doing that could possibly resemble sockpuppet tactics? I certainly didn't do anything like that on purpose..." and seek introspection. Hence, "this reminds me..." vs. "you remind me" As was pointed out by others in the ANI thread, I do have a reasonably long history of finding socks after they start participating in AfD's of fictional content. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That may have been your intention, but that wasn't the result. It'd be no different than saying there's jackassery going on. Even if the intention is to get editors to go "Woah, what am I doing that's making me seem like a jackass?" it's much more likely to get a "Call me a jackass? Well screw you!" reaction. I'm no stranger to sockpuppets, I also have a history of finding socks (I don't know whether it is considered a "long" history or not). I was a Signals Collection/Identification Analyst in the United States Army, and was also trained in behavioral studies and linguistic patterns in electronic communications. The point is, you're not the only one that can see a pattern in things. However, pointing out a suspicion isn't going to help resolve anything with either good-faith editors that are "acting" like a sockpuppet, or with actual sockpuppets. - SudoGhost 03:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This poor horse's body is no longer in tact. Pieces of it are being scattered. Put the sticks down, y'all. LadyofShalott 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

wp:ban

I think you misunderstand the proposal. At the very least, you understand it differently than I do. — Ched :  ?  04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed--I was reading it as "Is it appropriate to ban indef'ed users when the situation warrants it?" and by the way you responded, it appears as you were reading it as "Should it be routine for a ban proposal to be put forth for every indef blocked user who is not unblocked within a reasonably brief period of time?" I think I generally agree with you if the question is taken the way you took it. Clarification is probably a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you Online?

Need Some help. GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Off and on, yes. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think my IP address is constantly changing. So, sometime It shows that Your IP is blocked by checkuser. This glitch is very annoying. Can you help me in this matter with your checkuser toolbox ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can see. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Coren tagged your page as a sockpuppet and then reverted himself. You probably want to ask him what is going on. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See my talkpage for more information. He told me that I was caught with the same range of a sock account. I think he is inactive, then why don't you help me? GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump into another checkuser's investigation without asking, no. Hopefully, he will be back online reasonably soon to follow through. Failing that, he can always ask another CU for help... although in the grand scheme of things, I see no reason why he'd ask me vs. someone more experienced. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a videogame page?

Hello Jclemens, Sorry if this is not the correct way to contact you... im not very familiar with the way to do things right here. Im contacting you regarding my deleted page Orly Ben Garti and would like to know how can i get it back up? Best wishes and thank you for your help. Orly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessbg (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Hi Jclemens, this is first time i contact an admin, please forgive in advance if i'm doing anything wrong... Also, i suspect my request could fall into the "Pokemon Characters" category, or too close to it, but hey... to some of us, this is also actually useful stuff! So, in 2010 the page "Mutant Night" (1987 video game by the company UPL) was deleted : deleted page Mutant Night (Expired PROD, concern was: no evidence of notability and no references). I understand no actual information was provided for game, but i feel that deleting the page prevented from adding the information that could make the page worth keeping. The game certainly is an obscure one. Yet, it is still referenced in a few listings (within wikipedia pages as well as external sites), leading to "broken links" form these pages. I think the game is actually worth mentionning and documenting, for some of it's specific pionneering features, and also in regard to the history of the company UPL (several game from this company either refer to it or re-use features from this game). I said above that this kind of information might be useful stuff to some of us : besides entertainement and popular culture, the video game industry now has it's own ecosystem, including graduate schools. Gameplay design, video game history are part of the education. I do think documenting older games, even obscure ones, when information is available, is worth it. In the case of this game, is deletion final? Could it be considered to re-open the page, provided more interesting information can be added (by me, maybe :) )? Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.34.196 (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Restored. Please add the information appropriately, else someone is likely to nominate it for deletion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll do it within the coming days. If i may, i'll drop a note here so that you can check (if your available time allows to) if it's consistent enough. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.34.196 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but you might get a better/more knowledgeable answer by asking someone at WP:WikiProject Video Games. I didn't nominate it for deletion, I just deleted it after someone had nominated it and no one had objected after a week. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say that I added three refs, which might just barely be enough to keep it alive. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I've added contents (and whoops forgot the edit summary) but still needs to point to references. I'll post questions -if any- in the game's talk page and i'll go check the wikiproject video games! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.38.171 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jclemens. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_13.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Jclemens. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - this is in regards to the discussion at articles for deletion about a rude comment that was placed in a deletion discussion. I mentioned your comment in my post there. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Please see User talk:90moredays and User talk:Michael V Gold (True). You blocked the first account for sockpuppetry and the second is being hit by the underlying block of the IP, which seems to belong to the US Department of Homeland Security (Border Protection). As you posses checkuser and far more buttons than I, I'll leave it to you. --auburnpilot talk 16:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

90moredays is definitely a sock, not interested in unblocking him. Mr. Gold, on the other hand, wasn't anyone who came up in my investigations. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to go through and remove those IP autoblocks, and likely won't be for 8-10 hours. Feel free to contact any other CU and ask them to deal with Mr. Gold. I note that several other established users already have IPBE from those proxies, and didn't see Mr. Gold in my review. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My AfD stats are good

My AfD stats are good and I have been an editor for a long time so what Lugnuts did was completely uncalled for. http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?name=SL93&max=&startdate=&altname= SL93 (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not saying that you should have been subjected to ANY abuse, but your search missed a number of sources when your nomination said they were not found. See my detailed post at WT:AfD. Otherwise, that was a short and sweet nomination, but I would have also suggested that it be merged into the locality vs. outright deleted, since it is apparently verifiable (I don't speak German, but the coverage I did see looked sufficient to establish V, if not necessarily N). Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do the same exact search as others which turned up sources. If Lugnuts knew that there are many options of terms to type to bring up search results, he should have never said anything. I'm still stumped about Lugnuts. I read that he called IP editors scum on the AfD talk page. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

But I'm done with him. Maybe his heart is two sizes too small or something. SL93 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, not making excuses for him. We generally can't change other editors, other than getting them banned if they are consistently obnoxious such that the entire community gets sick of them, so I simply focus on making my nominations, objections, etc. as well-formed as possible, so that there are no possible *good* reasons for them to object to anything I do. Also, I try as hard as possible to stay entirely and impeccably polite, but perfection is impossible since people's interpretation of politeness differs from editor to editor. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

my proposal however not withdrawn

Re: YRC action withdrawn

I consider my comments in regard to RTV accounts to still be on point, with such accounts being responsible for an inordinate amount of noticeboard activity ([5] note the un-vanishing of ChrisO even though Prioryman was quite opposed thereto). "Vanished users who return" should be estopped from posting noticeboard complaints about those whom they had prior interaction problems with. I consider this common sense, and trust that the committee will address this issue at some point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You have an excellent point. I think we make username changes and "clean starts" far too easy, creating benefits for the users without any corresponding obligation at either staying away or transparency. In this case, both editors had done something similar... and now it just makes it all that much more difficult for editors to keep a scorecard on who used to be who... Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Recusal?

I understand that you recused during the RfAm.[6] Please could you explain why you are commenting now? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's drug on for nearly a month and I'd forgotten. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You were a named party in the unsuccessful previous RfAr initiated by TrevelyanL85A2, ostensibly against MastCell. Your own edits in relation to Echigo mole were mentioned. You seem to have forgotten about Echigo mole. He is a wikihounder and not very nice. Mathsci (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't forgotten Echigo Mole, but thanks for the reminder. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

← I'm not exactly clear on what this means. "I appear to have de facto rescinded [my recusal] by voting on the motion"? I assume you're un-recusing yourself, and saying so in a circuitous manner. Does that mean that the concerns which initially led you to recuse no longer apply? MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Which concerns are you referring to? I recused initially because I was weary of dealing with the entire situation. So I suppose that's a "yes", as a few weeks without substantial arbitration-related duties has made me a good bit less weary. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't find that a particularly compelling explanation, and I have to say that I think your approach to recusal in this case is cavalier and unfair to the case participants. I've asked for more feedback at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. MastCell ^Talk 07:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that you ised "recuse" in a broader sense than just "being disqualified for cause" but more in a sense of "I have not the time currently to deal with this"? I would be surprised if anyone really viewed "tangential and de minimis" interactions with being biassed, at least I hope not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. At the time I made my comment, the cause and net effect were substantially identical to if I'd simply declared myself inactive on the case. Jclemens (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that's not what you said at the time. You indicated that you were recusing because of previous interactions with the case participants, which you viewed as substantive enough to warrant recusal. A few weeks later, you forgot you'd recused and voted on a proposal. Then you retroactively un-recused yourself, even though nothing had materially changed in the scope or substance of the proceeding. Isn't that the correct chronology? If you were a litigant in an ArbCom case, would you feel fairly treated if an Arb acted in that fashion? MastCell ^Talk 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why, yes, I think it would be excellent that an arbitrator reviewing my case, who had direct experience with the conflict involved, had gotten over the weariness from past unsuccessful attempts to prompt better conduct from all parties. Allow me to quote myself: "I'll recuse, even though I've only ever interacted with these editors and this topic as an uninvolved administrator, my efforts to keep all parties working constructively have been dismal failures of the bitten-hand variety". The only thing that's changed is my willingness to participate, and as we've noted both here and on the discussion board, characterizing my initial status as "inactive" would have been better in hindsight. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disturbing activity at Article titles

There is some near-edit-warring and policy thrashing going on at WP:Article titles which is under Arbcom restriction. Please see if you can help cool things off. It probably does not need sysop input at this time but I thought I'd give you a heads up. Thanks. Jojalozzo 15:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Transwikification question

Hey there. I recently had Geordie dialect words moved to Wikibooks. I'm trying to figure out the next step. Is the local article a candidate for A5, or should I do a cross wiki redirect, or is there another option? I've never done this type of move before, and it's been a fairly confusing process thus far. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, I wish I knew more about the process myself. I've never actually done any transwikiing myself. Can any TPS help out? Or does anyone know anyone else who would know better? Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for anyone curious, I ended up redirecting the article, as that will be the easiest to undo if circumstances change or someone suggests another method of dealing with it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fluke votestack

I suggest the DRV is fatally flawed by caspring's WP:CANVASS actions made on a non-random and incomplete basis. For the nonce, I suggest the "controversy" article which remains is more than sufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I already voted on it, so I can't act as an admin... I was just looking at the end result, not the process, at any rate; rarely will the particular course of an AfD/DRV alter my opinion, since I tend to ask "Does this belong in the encyclopedia in this form?" rather than "were all the rules followed?" Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I know - just needed to make sure the issue was clearly raised at this point, as right now the DRV is not addressing what DRVs are supposed to address <g> Collect (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

CANVASSer (Casprings) blocked 48H for edit war to boot -- I think we have a problem, Houston. Collect (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... but if I stick to the facts vs. personalities and conduct, I can politely disagree with anyone. Or agree with anyone, for that matter. I get enough personalities and conduct working on ArbCom! :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, and in the interest of clarity: Casprings was blocked for a 3RR violation on a different article, not for canvassing or other activity at this DRV. I haven't looked into the canvassing allegation. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

D&D redirects

Other users apparently already support my contributions, and unless you want to fully commit to the edit-war you've started (which wouldn't look too good coming for an admin, I guess), if you still disagree with what was done you will have to get your hands dirty and actually discuss instead of mass reverting and bypassing an established consensus. We have several AfDs and discussions on the D&D wikiproject that support standardized redirection of articles on D&D fictional elements, which have been deemed non-notable as a whole, and keeping to brush that away and reverting every redirect that you see is not going to be seen as constructive. I don't mind good-faith disagreement to my edits, but since I'm merely implementing the consensus that was reached in these AfD, I think immediate reverts of my edits without discussion, if they keep occuring, could eventually be seen as POV pushing. Surely editors who disagree are perfectly capable of refraining themselves from immediately jumping on my edits and reverting them before having discussed the fact that my course of action is fully supported by several AfDs.

As a proof that massive reverts of my edits without discussions are unconstructive, you've restored articles that had been redirected per their own specific AfDs, and I've immediately reimplemented the redirects in these cases.

Also, please don't use misguided essays in my talk page, or on the topic of D&D redirects. You refer to WP:Fait accompli, yet what it refers to, ie "Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse" is merely called a consensus on Wikipedia, and I hardly see how having a consensus and implementing it would be inappropriate.Folken de Fanel ([:[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 23:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Which articles had their own specific AfD's? I did not see any of them, but it's entirely possible I missed something because of the volume of non-consensus redirects I was reverting. (I'll get to your other points after we ascertain this one--I don't want it to get lost) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the two, from 2008 and 2009, from your history. In neither case was the AfD notice on the top page of the history. That is, they were un-redirected, and enough work had been done on those two articles that to see the past AfD would have required scrolling past a good number of intervening edits. I'll address your other points next. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So, the problems I see with your response are as follows:

1) You mischaracterize consensus. Certainly, some people agree with you. Others do not. If you want consensus addressed, you need to get an uninvolved administrator to do it for you.

2) You are the one doing the blanket removals. The editor(s) who created and augmented those articles created specific sources. After a redirect is reverted, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss at the talk page or at a centralized location such as AfD. I don't recall seeing any of that for anything I've un-redirected. WP:BRD is the appropriate guideline.

3) Fait Accompli is indeed triggered by mass reversions. If you'll look at it carefully, that's not just an essay, it includes a summary of a relevant ArbCom principle, which has been applied multiple times since against editors with behavior patterns similar to yours. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing edit number for actual work on article. I can include each word from this very sentence as seperate edits so that an actual AfD outcome implementation will eventually pushed back in the history and hidden from contributors, that doesn't mean the reasons why the article was deleted in the first place have been adressed.

1) Which as already been done in various AfDs which outcomes and rationales have already been evaluated by uninvolved admins.

2) I'm merely implementing the consensus from these AfDs. Except in one case, I have not seen any discussion following reverts of my edits. I don't think BRD is relevant here since we already have a consensus, but I don't see how BRD would have been respected here in any way since reverts of my edits were not followed by discussion.

3) I'm implementing a consensus, which is hardly inappropriate. If you're really looking for cases of fait accompli, if I were you I'd rather look in the direction of these massive reverts-turned-articles that have been done by anonymous IPs that have repeatedly ignored requests of taking notability issues into considerations (see also the ratio of deletion vs conservation of these article, and tell me that these mass-creations are still warranted), edits that are often hiding specific AfD outcome violations.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not implementing any consensus, and repeatedly stating that you have a consensus is disingenuous: consensus exists per article. What you've been doing is actually called "Edit warring" or "disruptive editing". Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, you want the last word, as usual, so again write whatever you want after my message and I won't answer. That won't change the fact that a consensus exist, however. But enjoy yourself nonetheless.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If consensus existed, you would be able to point to a single discussion, closed by an uninvolved administrator, that explicitly stated such a consensus. You have yet to do so. While I don't dispute that you may in good faith believe that such a consensus exists, in such a case you should yourself be questioning how I can in good faith assert that it does not. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that there are, by my count, at least twice as many editors opposed to these mass redirects as there are those that support them. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And consensus does nor require unanimity, neither is it a head count. Last time such IP-created D&D monster article came up at AfD, it was specifically pointed out that an AfD wasn't required and that the initial redirect shouldn't have been reverted. If people who "don't support the redirects" are just going to recommand a redirect in AfD, as it happened for cyclopskin, then there is no need to go through an AfD. If people who don't support the redirects or revert the redirect can't substanciate their opinion (no redirect = article is notable = where are the sources ?), then they shouldn't be taken into account. Rejecting bold redirects out of pure ideology, when another AfD pointed out the merits of this solution, is not an option, unless thoroughly argumented, which I haven't seen here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep posting here, and keep not coming up with a link to the consensus I pointed out that you can't document. If you can't do that, but instead just try to Wikilawyer away an entire group of articles based on a series of presumptions about their content potential while strenuously objecting to individual examinations of that potential... Yeah, I'm just not seeing good credibility here. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclopskin in which it has been specifically pointed out by a variety of users that such articles on minor D&D creatures shouldn't have been made in the first place, and that AfDs are not needed to deal with them. We have consensus on a specific course of action, and 21 AfDs on similar articles with the same outcome to substanciate it. I don't see any valid reason to oppose further immediate redirects, I had previously tried to redirect all the articles nominated in the "Deatch watch bettle" AfD, and all these articles were subsequently redirected per AfD outcome. There is no credible argumentation here that the artiles I just redirected wouldn't have the same fate in AfD. This is the same case as Cyclopskin, were redirects are proven more appropriate than AfD, and again, you have not provided any sensible reason why the consensus at Cyclopskin AfD shouldn't be taken into account. I'm merely asking those disagreeing with the redirects to provide reasonings based on our content policies and guidelines like WP:GNG as to why these articles shouldn't be redirected, or why the Cyclopskin consensus should be ignored. I'm still waiting.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I only see you and one other (Snow) in general agreement about that. While most people there suggested redirecting, I don't see them saying that should necessarily be the default position. As we've seen, the amount of coverage varies greatly from one creature to the next. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominator Drmies agreed with default redirect, since he tried to redirect the article first and was reverted. sgeureka argued that it is "unneccessary bureaucracy and drama to revert the redirect telling Drmies to take this to AfD , and then immediately saying deletion is unnecessary" (if any of the articles I have redirected go to AfD, can you assure me you won't recommend a redirection ?). Salimfadhley states that "I cannot see how any of these minor D&D monster articles pass GNG". Rorshacma "can't understand why the redirect was reverted to begin with", and even Hobit agreed that "this doesn't belong at AfD as others have noted above". We have a discussion at the D&D Wikiproject that also supports this course of action. We've had 21 AfDs (including Cyclopskin and Death watch bettle) on these similar IP-created, primarily sourced articles on minor D&D creatures, the outcome was consistently redirect for lack of notability. Your statement that "the amount of coverage varies greatly from one creature to the next" is completely unconvincing and doesn't adress the fact that each of these IP-created minor D&D monster article that went to AfD was redirected per lack of notability. The articles I've just redirected are similar Ip-created and primarily sourced, and I haven't seen you providing reliable coverage for these. The cyclopsin consensus is still valid and I've seen no credible reason in your argumentation not to implement it. I would not insist on redirects if such articles had previously been kept at AfD, but the ratio of AfD redirections (21) vs conservations (0) is glaring evidence against your opinion. Unless you actually provide sources that would ensure an article among those IP-created and recently redirected could survive an AfD (again not forgetting the consensus on valid sources in the "Dwb" AfD), I'm afraid I see no credible reason not to implement the course of action suggested in the Cyclopskin AfD and the D&D Wikiproject.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to personally source dozens of articles in the span of a couple of days. I have worked on one article, Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), and even you have tacitly admitted that it now passes WP:GNG. So my point about varying amounts of coverage stands. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That you have found content for an article on one of the major player character races is nice. However that has little to no relation to the articles such as Crawling claw. Thats like saying that becuase there are sufficient reliable sources for this dog we should accept your claim that there are sources out there that just need to be looked for to support the creation of my pet dog Fido and that we should just wait until someone decides to take the time to look for them. When (if) reliable third party sources providing significant content about the particular critter is found, THEN then a stand alone article can be created/recreated to be based on what the sources have to say about the subject.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

TRPOD is right, I thought I made it clear that I was refering to the myriad of recent redirects-turned-articles by IPs on minor monsters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the problem with all this is that none of it answers the question I asked, which I repeat here for clarity: Is there any one discussion, closed by an impartial admin, where consensus was that any such D&D creature should be automatically and permanently redirected rather than being independently discussed? All that's been given is a bunch of examples, which, per WP:OTHERSTUFF are not normative. Likewise, lumping a bunch of dissimilar creatures together at one AfD and getting one result is not normative for other, non-nominated creatures. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think here and here and the various links above show that the real question is where is there any consensus that they should not be subject to WP:N? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No one here has advocated that N does not apply, merely asserted that each creature might separately meet it, due to sourcing that varies from creature to creature. You've just committed a talk page foul; please apologize for doing so, cease doing so in the future, or excuse yourself from posting on this topic at my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But we have consensus at the Cyclopskin AfD and the D&D Wikiproject discussion that minor D&D creatures are unlikely to be notable and that redirects are prefered over unnecessary and time-consuming bureaucracy that are AfDs. By the way, no "dissimilar creatures" were lumped together at AfD, all the articles nominated for the "Death watch bettle" AfD were similar minor creatures from a similar franchise, all similarly primarily sourced, all similarily massively created without considerations for our notability guidelines by the same IPs in early 2012 or during 2011, from similar redirects initially pointing to lists of D&D monsters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Cyclopskin is not normative per WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the D&D Wikiproject discussion not only lacks the consensus you ascribe to it, but has not been adjudicated as such by an impartial admin. You've been told this repeatedly, but continue to repeat the same arguments--this is the behavior that reminds me of Otto4711 and other sockmasters: rather than actually trying to GET consensus, he routinely pretends as if his interpretation is normative and refuses to attempt to actually garner consensus or engage with good-faith editors who see things differently. Until you alter your repetitive arguments, you are not contributing to a constructive dialogue. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay and thus cannot supplement a consensus that establishes a course of action for specific articles. The D&D Wikiproject discussion does feature a consensus which has already been implemented. Adjudication by an impartial admin is not required, but if you're really intent on using that argument, then no impartial admin has adjudicated a consensus on reverting redirects. Blame of WP:IDHT as much as you want, it is not because you disagree that it means you have consensus with you, consensus does not require unanimity. And it is preposterous to imply that until I agree with you I'm "not contributing to a constructive dialogue". You want to be constructive ? Then find sources that would prevent the articles to be redirected. Otherwise you have no reason to revert the redirects.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:ONLYESSAY, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. You've failed multiple times to bring forth any actual precedent, despite being invited to do so and told what it would look like, yet you persist in pretending that one exists. You are welcome to post on this topic on this page again once you have found such a consensus. Failing that, you're still not being constructive here. Fact is, if you want things redirected, you need per-article consensus, which you do not have. To recap, you have been specifically warned that re-redirecting articles without a consensus is edit warring, that doing so en masse is disruptive editing per WP:FAIT, and invited to take specific articles to AfD if you believe it appropriate to have the sourcing reviewed by the community as a whole and the consensus judged by an uninvolved administrator. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual precedents are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclopskin and D&D Wikiproject. That you want to turn a blind eye to it doesn't change facts, and you are unable to link to any consensus preventing redirects. Since redirects are defined as perfectly acceptable alternative to deletion per policy, and are supported by consensus in previous AfD and discussion on the relevant wikiproject, you are hereby warned that reverting redirects without adressing the editorial reason why they've been redirected is edit warring, that doing so en masse is disruptive editing per WP:FAIT. You are invited to use article talk pages and present argumentation based on editorial policies and guidelines if you believe articles have appropriate sourcing to guaranty them notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The former is a single AfD in which the closing statement makes no mention of dealing with anything beyond the one article in question and the latter is not even an RfC. You've been citing the same two "precedents" inappropriately for quite a while now--it's clear that no such actual precedents exist, and that you do not desire to actually seek such a precedent. You can try the warn-the-admin-for-the-same-thing-he-already-warned-me-for schtick, but I don't think it will have the desired results. Until and unless you have something substantially new to add to the discussion, I'm considering it closed. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty clear to me that there is no established consensus that all of the articles redirected by Folken de Fanel should be redirected. It may be that some of them lack sufficient sourcing, but this is not the reality in every case. I have never seen a policy which read that a few AFDs and a few discussions on talk pages could proactively determine consensus for any and all similar type of articles and allow a user to redirect dozens of articles without engaging in further discussion. Even if that were true, this argument does not apply to every article that Folken de Fanel redirected on August 21. Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), Bruenor Battlehammer, Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons), Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons), and Marilith have all been subsequently restored, and sources were added; in the case of the first two, independent sources already existed in the articles before they were redirected. If these can be improved, then I have to wonder what can be done with the rest. Additionally, the argument that Folken was merely reverting anything which started off as a redirect and that he restored to a redirect is also misleading, as all of those I mentioned above and many of the others which Folken de Fanel redirected this week did not start out as redirects, including some that this user has edit-warred over to keep as redirects (see the edit history of Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons) for an example, which does have at least one independent source). Some cases, such as Aboleth, had a previous AFD where no consensus was determined, and as we know from the example of Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) it is possible that an article can remain as an article if there is no consensus to delete or redirect. I have never seen "discussions on the D&D wikiproject that support standardized redirection of articles on D&D fictional elements, which have been deemed non-notable as a whole" (emphasis mine) – to my knowledge there has never been such a conclusion reached, as some D&D fictional elements have proven to be notable, so such a blanket statement is blatantly false. Therefore, I am restoring the D&D articles that Folken de Fanel has redirected without determining consensus first. For what it’s worth, I did not assess each of them individually before restoring. Any user who wishes to discuss these articles further on a case-by-case basis may of course do so; such a discussion need not take place at AFD, although a user talk page is probably not the best place to continue this. Also, remember that tags such as notability, primary sources, and refimprove are far less controversial than redirecting or deleting an article, and may produce positive results. BOZ (talk)

Thanks, BOZ. It's worth noting that several different editors un-redirected and improved the articles you listed. I did the perfunctory work on Marilith to demonstrate non-primary sourcing, but it's not at all clear to me that what I found was ALL that could be found. The large number of folks working on a variety of articles demonstrates that there is no widespread consensus that all of these articles are irreparably unsourceable, and only reinforces my contention that blanket solutions are inappropriate for fictional creatures which have varying levels of mythological origin and adoption in later derivative works. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, AfD it is, then. Two words. One for Jclemens: "varying levels of mythological origin and adoption in later derivative works": these elements don't have any influence on notability. To BOZ: "I have never seen discussions on the D&D wikiproject ....": yes you have, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons/Archive_30#Consolidation_Proposal.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The level of effort required to get you to actually use the proper methods for resolving contested merges has been unreasonable. Do be sure to nominate the ones you find most problematic individually, so we can actually assess them individually, otherwise I'll be arguing to sever them as unequal in coverage. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Please be sure to use warning templates appropriately.

WP:CANVASS states that "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."

The notice for which you have unduly warned me was on TheRedPenOfDoom's talkpage, who is certainly a concerned editor which has participed to previous discussions. To be perfectly neutral, I have also notified BOZ, who, I'm sure, is not known for having a similar viewpoint on the matter.

If you absolutely want to warn people for canvassing, I guess BOZ might be a more likely candidate than me, because of this edit, and I haven't seen him sending an identical notice to someone known for having a different opinion than his...Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, BOZ probably could have phrased that better. But then, BOZ doesn't have a history of edit warring, misrepresenting consensus, WP:IDHT textwalling, incivility in the form of calling non-vandalism edits vandalism in edit summaries, and making widespread disputed changes, so I think I'll focus on editors who seem to be less interested in collegial editing than BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia doesn't seem to be lacking that, you're gonna have your hands full for a while, then. Good luck in your quest !Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As to your comment at TRPOD's talkpage, you were already informed that my comment wasn't canvassing in any way, and you as much as admitted it yesterday. Yet now you act as if our conversation never happened, and you try to have TRPOD either remove his comment in AfD or to identify me as a canvasser ? Why didn't you go on with your logic and ask BOZ, whom I also notified, to also remove his statement or to denonce me as a "partisan" who nonetheless notifies his "adversaries" ? Because you know that would have been completely outside the boundaries of WP:CANVASS just as your comment at TRPOD is, that it would have established my neutrality, and of course you would not have requested the removal of a comment that suits you. Stop making false allegations.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you think I "as much as admitted it yesterday", then you really need to go back and read my response more carefully. The entirety of my response is above, and in no way excuses or exonerates your continued violation of Wikipedia conduct expectations, merely agrees that BOZ's could be phrased better. Or, to put it another way, "two wrongs don't make a right". Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You carefully avoid to answer to my main argument: I did not canvass per the criteria of acceptable notification from WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification. I've already explained it to you once, I thought the matter was settled but you continued your false allegations on TRPOD's talk page, I've clarified the situation for a second time, and your only response was to write another false allegation this time directly in the AfD discussion. This has gone too far: I ask you to remove your accusation that I would have canvassed TRPOD, or if you don't want that, to equally request for BOZ's comment to be "stricken as the result of partisan recruitment", since I've also notified him right after TRPOD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

At some point, this is veering into WP:COMPETENCE territory, I'm afraid. Are you asserting that BOZ canvassed himself to appear and participate? That's entirely divergent from reality, since in the diff you provided it was BOZ who notified Bilby, who has not yet participated in the AfD. On the second part, you seem to have this disturbing habit of believing that whatever explanation you provide will be universally accepted as sufficient and convincing. On the contrary, rarely are any arguments you set forward actually convincing or sufficient, and if they were, I would signal my agreement by saying something along the lines of "Well, that's a really good argument" or "I agree with you". A failure to say "Is NOT!" or some other direct refutation should never be taken as signalling tacit acceptance. This may shed some light on why you have a propensity to textwall by providing rebuttals that have zero new argument, if you're in the mood for introspection. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1) No, I'm saying that I notified BOZ for the Adherer AfD User_talk:BOZ#AfD_on_D.26D_creatures at about the same time I mentionned it at TRPOD's talk page. I was perfectly within the limits of WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification which recommands that "identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it". I've sent an identical notice to BOZ, who is not known for sharing my opinion, I thus have not been partisan and conformed in good faith to what I read in WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.

2) The direct consequence of this is that if you consider my message on TRPOD's page to be canvassing, then my message on BOZ's page is also canvassing, and you should ask BOZ's comment to be equally stricken from the AfD.

3) I wasn't even notifying TRPOD and recruting him for the AfD, but rather discussing a new course of action with him, anticipating he might have considered reverting BOZ's reverts. And in case this discussion was seen as canvassing, I decided to also notify BOZ of the AfD, to prove my good faith.

4) so when you say "rarely are any arguments you set forward actually convincing or sufficient" and refuse to listen to my explanations of good faith avoidance of canvassing, you are actually assuming bad faith on my part ? Do you consider my similar AfD notice to BOZ as "clear evidence that I'm trying to hurt the project" ?

5) TRPOD told you that "All three articles are on my watch list and the afd posting there is as much or more responsible than the above comment, so no I will not strike my opinion nor falsely state that the notice posted by FdF was responsible", yet you're still asking for his comment in the AfD to be removed. Are you also claiming that "rarely are any arguments TRPOD sets forward actually convincing or sufficient" and thus assuming bad faith on his part when he tells you that ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I recommend you take a break for a while? You're making yourself look bad when you assert that this is equivalent to this. The former is clearly partisan; the second a courtesy notification. This underlies the fact that you simply seem not to understand either the spirit or letter of WP:CANVASS. All participation after a CANVASS violation (which your notice to TRPOD was, while your notice to BOZ was not) is akin to a Fruit of the poisonous tree problem. I don't have to disbelieve that you intended the notification of BOZ to balance your canvassing of TRPOD, nor that TRPOD did indeed have those articles on his watchlist, for his participation to be problematic. You see, the reasons we have conduct expectations is that a few very vocal persons can POV-push their way around policies and guidelines by bullying off one side and recruiting editors friendly to their cause to cause a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at odds with larger policy. And, in the big picture, that is why I have a problem with your repeated violations of Wikipedia's conduct norms. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1) No, my notice to TRPOD was not partisan. Absolutely nowhere do I tell him to "please write a delete comment in this AfD". As I told you, I was first discussing a course of action with him (AfDs rather than redirects), and he is a "concerned editor who has participated in previous discussions on the same topic". And my message to BOZ proves beyond doubt that I'm not partisan since I notified someone who was not on my party. You are the only one not understanding either the spirit or letter of WP:CANVASS, and your insistance on protraying me as "partisan" even when I notify people who are sure not to have the same view as me, without any more proof, can only be seen as assumption of bad faith. You are not acting as an uninvolved admin, we are both locked in an on-going editorial dispute and your last 2 sentences are glaring evidence for that, and I ask you to remove all your accusations from the AfD page until a perfectly uninvolved third party judges my actions to indeed be as you chose to portray them.

2) Warning me is one thing, but that you're still trying to get TRPOD's comment removed per a so-called canvassing, after he has firmly told you that neither his participation nor the nature of his comment at AfD had anything to do with my message on his page, is just going way too far. Again, I want to see how this would be handled by a third-party admin not involved as you are in an on-going editorial dispute with both me and TRPOD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means, try and find an uninvolved administrator who will pronounce your message to TRPOD "non-partisan". You've got more of a chance of getting an admin to say "no big deal" with respect to TRPOD's involvedment in the AfD despite your obviously partisan canvassing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not partisan due to my notice to BOZ, and I never fed TRPOD with the AfD comment I wanted, even my notice to him was neutral, as per WP:CANVASS, he is a "concerned editor who has participated in previous discussions on the same topic" and I equally notified a user likely to disagree with me. And if you consider it is likely other admins will consider TRPOD's involvment as "no big deal", then I think removing your request in the AfD yourself will always look better and be a good sign that you're willing to compromise and keep things from escalating.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have some problems understanding what is and is not partisan. Your note to TRPOD begins "Jclemens and BOZ have proved their intention to edit war..." and continues in the same vein. You can't balance that with a neutral notification to other parties: it's forthrightly partisan in its content. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Jclemens and BOZ have proved their intention to edit war..." is mere fact, and as I told you, I merely wanted to discuss the merits of another course of action than following you in your edit warring, because it was obvious more reverts were just not the right solution. I've left TRPOD similar messages in the past [7], and it is clear my message in itself was not a notice but rather a part of an ongoing editorial discussion. If two users having the same opinion and discussing the best way to do things is "partisan", then you have thousands of other users to warn.
The actual part where I mention the AfD is "I've started the process with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherer by nominating the 3 articles that escaped the "death watch bettle" AfD, because BOZ's reverting spree also touched your redirects on Adherer, Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons). " This unquestionably neutral, it is clear that my AfD was a result of BOZ reverting TRPOD's edit, this is making him a "concerned editor" whom it is appropriate to notify, and knowing TRPOD would be involved in the matter anyway, I showed him there was another way to proceed than what was done before. Absolutely nowhere do I tell him to "please write a delete comment in this AfD". And in accordance to WP:CANVASS, in order to avoid being seen as partisan, I also notified BOZ. Unfortunately, unless you assume bad faith on my part, there's nothing you can say against that, WP:CANVASS is clearly respected.
You still haven't removed your request in the AfD, while admitting others won't see TRPOD's comment as a big deal.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Blake (musician)

Hi you deleted Michael Blake (musician) as I had reused the bio information that he provided me for his website. I am now starting to chip away at rewriting it but I'm not sure I have selected the right process. The new page is here...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Blake_(musician) If you have any advice to give I will be happy to act on it. Regards, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgblake (talk • contribs) 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a much better effort. There were two reasons the previous article were deleted: lack of significance and copyright violation. Since it's easy for people to cut-and-paste articles from the Internet into Wikipedia, we do our best to keep those out unless there's a clear explanation of why the text matches an external website. In your case, it sounds like you wrote both, but we wouldn't have known that. So you can say similar things, but be sure to avoid copying verbatim (except for small quotes), or closely paraphrasing what you wrote elsewhere. The real question is... who else cares about him? An NYT reference is great, but has he received any other industry press? At any rate, you have a good start and I see no insurmountable problems here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jjclemens

I'm not sure if it's a coincidence or a problem, but you might want to keep an eye on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jjclemens —Kww(talk) 22:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The name is common enough that I don't guess that there's probably any intent to be a doppleganger, but time will tell. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio help please

Hey, I'm not sure how to deal with this problem I've discovered. I've been working on cellular automaton the last few days, and I just found a reference that looks to have been stolen verbatim. I rewrote part of it a little while ago before realizing that other sections of the text were copied as well. Specifically, the first six paragraphs in the history section are plagiarized. The source is here, the two sections called "The Birth of Cellular Automaton" and "The Zuse-Fredkin Thesis" on pages 5–7. I'd already re-written some other parts of it a few days ago as well, but if you look at this version, you can see it's basically word-for-word. I'm not sure if I can just continue to rewrite it, or if something else needs to be done to zap the history. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Continue to rewrite it. I'm doing a few other things, and then I will go through and make sure I agree that you've adequately paraphrased it (and let you know if I disagree), and then I'll nuke the copyvio from history. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It may take a while to rewrite everything properly. Meanwhile, I've found where a big piece of the material was added, almost a decade ago, if that helps. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I'll go read up on best known methods for fixing such messes, but I'm afraid the whole history between then and now may need to be nuked. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Err, wait. That book is from 2011. Did someone plagiarize them, or did they plagiarize Wikipedia? Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I hadn't noticed that. Now I'm really confused. That's the first edition of the book. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's get some more eyes on this. How about bringing this up at WP:CP, (feel free to reference this discussion here) and see what other folks who do this as a primary emphasis have to say about the possibility? Regardless, you've clearly done the right thing by spotting the problem and bringing it to someone's attention. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Chachi Arcola

You may wish to choose a different example of a fictional character that is actually not covered by secondary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article, but I based the example off the state of the article as it was when I thought of using it. That's why the references are to a specific version. As we all know, many things can look unsalvageable, but yet turn out to have adequate sourcing. Jclemens (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherer

I responded to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherer, and I hope it didn't come off as argumentative, because that wasn't my intention, but you brought up an interesting idea, and while I don't necessarily agree with it in this case, I think civil disagreement and discussion helps to flesh out new ideas. Also, since you !voted to sever the AfD at the beginning, could you perhaps modify that or make a note about your comment further below? - SudoGhost 08:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since "sever" is a procedural argument, rather than a specific comment on content, I really don't see a need to change it--it's not a !vote (what a stunningly strange construction), despite being bolded, and appears to have little to no impact on the flow of debate. I'll review your comments. Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

To follow up, I unbolded it anyways. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

D&D monster list

If you are concerned about preserving information on D&D monsters, you may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

It doesn't look you're aware of it yet, but your comment/suspicion about a certain editor has been brought in focus on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#And_A_Nobody.27s_participation.3F. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens is away currently, but I'll let him know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that this has already been archived, and as I understand it, the comments involving me were simply quotes of my past observations about possible inclusionist sockpuppetry that never compelled me to run an SPI to settle the matter. If I've overlooked anything or any questions remained unanswered, please feel free to highlight them for my attention. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Anna S. Þorvaldsdóttir

Hi Jclemens. Any chance you could userify the Anna S. Þorvaldsdóttir article you deleted at 19:06, 25 December 2009? Since then she has won the Nordic Council Music Prize, so notability is no longer an issue, and I'm thinking of putting together a properly referenced article about her – I'm just wondering whether the deleted article would give me a start. Thanks — Hebrides (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored it; it was deleted via PROD, so no special justification was needed. It has only primary sources right now, so I tagged it with {{blprefimprove}} and left it in mainspace. I would appreciate it if you would go ahead and use or rewrite that article to include the appropriate secondary sources appropriate for a WP:BLP. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've assembled a number of sources and will be creating a properly referenced article over the next week or so. In the meantime, I've done a quick initial edit to update the information and to add a reference to the article about her on the Music Prize site. Cheers — Hebrides (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. LadyofShalott 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I may or may not respond there. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm back

Thanks for your patience with me while I was out of the country. It turned out that my Internet access was more severely limited than I anticipated, and thus was on a pretty severe Wikibreak not entirely of my own choosing. Give me 24 hours to catch up, and if I've not addressed something that you think I should have, please ping me again on this talk page. As you might imagine, I'm catching up on Wikipedia as well as the rest of my life simultaneously. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop

I just wanted to warn you that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Another_AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankh-Morpork City Watch your behavior is starting to look like Wikipedia:Harassment. You're free to participate to any discussion you want, but your pattern of singling me out in your answers, only to throw a bunch of personal attacks (that includes wrongful and unsubstanciated accusations of bad behavior) aimed at getting back at me for daring to have a different opinion than yours in unrelated discussions, is becoming tiresome and needs to stop. I will not be your punching ball for whenever you feel your editorial beliefs are threatened, your first move at the Wikiproject was obviously prompted by your fear of the Adherer AfD and the discussion at WP:RSN, now right after your more than original interpretation of policy gets rebutted at Ant lion AfD, you of course lash out at me at Ankh-Morpork AFD.

You have to drop the battleground mentality, if your views are not accepted by the community, violence and intimidation is not going to do any good. Just drop it and do something else.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to give you some small measure of time to realize your mistake and revert yourself here, to avoid having you take yet another chance to make yourself look stupid... but you don't seem to have realized, and so I'll regretfully point out that you followed me to that AfD: Per this, your first edit to the page was 28 hours after mine. My first edit was delayed by a week or more since I was out of the country without Wiki access, as can be seen by the more than weeklong gap in my edit history. Oh, and I have had a Discworld Userbox on my page since 53 months ago: Well before I was an admin, let alone an arb.

So for you to come here and complain that I'm following you... is yet another instance where you look like you are not accurately perceiving reality. Seriously, if you're going too fast and making avoidable mistakes, please slow down and be more careful. If you really believe this to be me persecuting you... I suggest you seek appropriate mental health counseling.

I bear you no ill will whatsoever. I will, however, defend the encyclopedic coverage of fiction against you and others who want to use an overly narrow reading of our notability and sourcing guidelines to limit or remove coverage of prominent fictional elements that are verifiable, related to clearly notable topics, and of use to our readers. If you continue to participate in those areas, you will continue to encounter me. I hope that you can participate in an effective and collegial manner despite your history of heretofore doing neither. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remain civil and comment on content, not on contributors. As to your "serious lack of connectedness to reality" comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankh-Morpork City Watch (and others right above), you're neither a psychiatrist nor is Wikipedia the place to interpret disagreement with you as mental disorder. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My dearest Folken, at what point have I ever commented on you? You have made statements that are inconsistent with a careful approach to editing, and more characteristic of haste-induced errors or an inability to comprehend reality. In the latter case, I would indeed hope that you should get mental health assistance. Merely because I judge it the less likely of the two outcomes is insufficient reason for me to neglect the possibility that you might indeed be experiencing some sort of mental illness, in which case I would be failing to uphold my oath. Your statement that I am not a psychiatrist is indeed correct, but as a licensed clinician, if I am presented with a patient who exhibits signs of a simple mental illness, such as depression or anxiety, I would indeed be responsible for assigning a diagnosis and treating such a patient appropriately. At the same time, were I presented with a patient who had a more complicated mental health diagnosis, I would be referring that patient to a specialist, like any primary care clinician would. BUT, since you are not my patient and I am not giving you medical advice, that's only tangentially relevant and only because you brought it up.

What you should have done was been to have said "You're right, I didn't notice you posted to the page first", just like I did when in my mass-unredirection of D&D creature articles, I undirected two which had been redirected by AfD previously. By portraying that as a personal attack, you continue to lose credibility and demonstrate your inability to interact collegially with other editors. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"BUT, since you are not my patient and I am not giving you medical advice"...That's actually completely correct. I thus hope you'll stick to that and, whatever you think of me (just as I do of you, for example), that you'll keep it for you and no longer let in creep into your comments in discussion on Wikipedia. Any comment on my supposed mental health would be a personal attack, and as personal attacks are forbidden by policy, I can only stress the previous warning you received. Please also note that somehow deducing that because I disagree with you I would be "unable to interact collegially with other editors" is also a comment on contributor, not on content, thus a personal attack, and completely erroneous since I obviously have no problem interacting collegially with users such as TRPOD or SudoGhost. I hereby also warn you to stop making comments on me, even when not on a supposed mental health, and again encourage you to stick to comments on content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think that me saying--after you told me to stop following you to a page I'd edited 28 hours prior to your first edit--that you appear to either be working too fast and making mistakes OR that you may have reality perception problems is a personal attack, then you don't understand what a personal attack is. Every comment of mine about you--your hostility, edit warring, misquoting policy, referencing decisions that didn't exist, pretending that consensus existed when it didn't, claiming victory when unanimously repudiated at AfD and DRV--is about your behavior. You may well be a perfectly decent chap in real life, and I wish nothing but the best for your prosperity and health. HOWEVER, your specific behavior on Wikipedia has been sorely lacking, continues to be sub-standard, and I genuinely hope that your future Wikipedia behavior is entirely unrelated to your past failings. You have not warned me about anything other than your own continued reluctance to take my feedback on your conduct. Nothing I have ever said to you or about you remotely touches on anything covered in WP:WIAPA, and I strongly encourage you to work on accurately perceiving reality, since if you attempt to get me sanctioned for my behavior, you are at far more risk of a negative outcome (via WP:BOOMERANG) than I. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Any comment on my supposed mental health is a personal attack. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks.Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Without speaking to any behaviours in this specific dispute, because I have been studiously ignoring the content discussion, I would just remind both parties that behaviours can be indicative of mental health or of mental-health problems. However, I would be reluctant, and would expect a clinician to be even more reluctant, to draw such conclusions about the background mental health of an adopted persona in cyberspace. Instead, behaviours are helpful, neutral or obstructive on WP. We don't need to dig any deeper than that. Bielle (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Bielle, to the extent that you believe I've ever accused Folken of being mentally ill, you're reacting to his response, not what I actually said. To self paraphrase: "If you're accusing me of following you to an AfD where I arrived first, you're either working too fast or nor perceiving reality properly". The obvious implication is that he's working too fast... but he's also demonstrated a reluctance to admit wrongdoing in any way, to include refusing to admit a mistake. Thus, rather than saying "You're right, I was working too fast, of course I'm perceiving reality properly", he simply picks up on the contingent clause and accuses me of making it as if it were a statement. Of course, this is not in a vacuum; his previous at-odds-with-reality behavior is well-documented on this page and elsewhere. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, note that the most explicit "following me around" comment is here. Note also that Folken has later toned down some of his response, which seemed to be an improvement, while retaining the assertion that I was following him around. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, two of your statements above stand out: 1.If you really believe this to be me persecuting you... I suggest you seek appropriate mental health counseling; and, 2....or an inability to comprehend reality. In the latter case, I would indeed hope that you should get mental health assistance. Merely because I judge it the less likely of the two outcomes is insufficient reason for me to neglect the possibility that you might indeed be experiencing some sort of mental illness, in which case I would be failing to uphold my oath. Just from my personal observations after 5 or so years, it is a very common reaction for people on WP to disagree one with the other on what constitutes reality; it is very uncommon who one side to conclude that the dissenting voice, if it fails to acknowledge the errors of its way, is mentally ill. (As noted above, I am not making judgements about the facts of the matter. I haven't read the facts of the matter. It is quite possible that, even in our world of grays, one of you is completely right and the other completely wrong.) I do not believe, however, that "mental illness' should be bandied about as if fit were a necessary conclusion to "I don't see the situation the way you do." Bielle (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Bielle, I agree in the general case. The specific thing that prompted me to question his perception of reality was the "stop following me!" comment after I'd already posted in that AfD 28 hours before Folken first posted to it. It's entirely possible to hold differing policy interpretations, and Wikipedia would be an entirely boring place if we did not, but the concept of following implies latter arrival--it's an objective reality thing, that should be (and is) easily ascertained from the page logs. Objective reality says I was there first, so a "stop following me" pronouncement is at odds with that objective reality. I still maintain carelessness in reviewing the facts of the situation prior to posting as the most likely cause; all other alternatives are listed only for comparison purposes. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:HA defines harassment as "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons". Though Jclemens is trying to hide behind the technicality of having contributed at Ankh-Morpork AfD first (which I never denied he did), I maintain that he intentionally targeted and responded to a comment of mine that was never addressed to him, while he could easily have responded to another comment from another user, Sandstein, that expressed the same views and referred to the same policies as I did: [8]. Yet Jclemens chose to answer to my comment but not Sandstein's. Not only that, but he chose to do so in a borderline uncivil way: Jclemens told me that my "viewpoints just got repudiated" and to "go study how Wikipedia's actual handling of the notability of fictional topics differs from your viewpoints". I was merely quoting very clear parts of policies and guidelines so I still don't know which "viewpoints" he was referring to, and still don't understand how "Wikipedia's actual handling" could differ from policies and guideline, which are supposed to represent "the good practices that are accepted in the Wikipedia community". I was also very suprised about the personal tone of his answer ("your viewpoints") considering user Sandstein's comment, identical to mine, a few days before. When I pointed out all the inconsistencies to him [9], far from making amends he immediatly intensified his level of aggression: "I'm simply not sure how to engage with a user whose WP:IDHT level is so high". Per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are defined as personal attacks.
This incident happened after Jclemens already targeted and personally attacked me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Another AfD. This is starting to look like a pattern, and it has to stop before it escalates even more.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never denied there was a pattern. The pattern goes something like you try to delete or redirect useful content that has what I believe to be adequate sourcing and policy-based reasons for its inclusion, and I repudiate your rationale when I become aware of it. And by "become aware of it" I mean that it shows up at one of the DELSORT or Wikiproject pages I watch; I do not track any editor's contributions on a regular basis, including yours. The other patten at work is your history of poor behavior, documented above such that I don't feel like recounting it again--your accusations that I lack evidence of your poor behavior are patently false, and themselves would be considered a personal attack under the standard you espouse. Again, saying that your policy interpretations are off-base is not a personal attack, but saying that I'm personally attacking you is itself a personal attack since it lacks any basis in objective reality.

You keep talking about a so-called "documented history of poor behavior" while always refusing to actually document your claims. Per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks and there's nothing you can do about it. Saying that my "policy interpretations are off-base" is indeed not a personal attack, unless when there is no observable interpretation on my part but only quotes from policy and you accuse me of WP:IDHT for noting that. By the way, I still don't know which of my so-called "interpretation of policy" in Ankh-Morpork AfD would be "off base". Please provide diffs and explanations, or drop your claim. And I maintain in good faith that you seem to have targeted me since another user said the same things and referred to the same policies as I did, but you didn't answer to him, only to me, and only in order to personally attack me.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You've responded to every single time I've called you out on your poor behavior--most of them, in the history of this page or your user talk page, others at various AfDs or Wikiprojects. I do not need to provide diffs every single time I refer to them, and your insisting on such is nonsensical: You've seen them, you've rebutted them, and an attempt to insist that I justify with diffs every single time I bring up your past poor behavior serves no purpose other than to try and conceal or stifle the discussion of your past behavior. You are still working off a definition of personal attack that is entirely at odds with WP:WIAPA, by the way. Your argument that I should have lambasted Sandstein instead of (or in addition?) to pointing our your logic errors is classic WP:WAX. In other words, I have yet to see any legitimiate complaint despite the volume of words you've expended complaining. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:NPA, yes, you need to provide diffs. And I still don't see why you would insist on bringing up an entirely imaginary "past poor behavior" in completely unrelated discussions (this time it was an AfD, before it was in a thread notifiying the opening of a discussion at WP:RSN). So yes, I don't want you to resort to personal attacks that are unsubstanciated accusation of bad behavior whenever you run out of editorial argumentation, or just whenever you feel like getting back at me for having dared to disagree with you. WP:NPA still says that "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U)", and editorial forums like AfDs or Wikiprojects are not appropriate for discussing user conducts.
Please also explain why my "definition of personal attack" would be "entirely at odds with WP:WIAPA", WP:WIAPA states that "some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."
You say logic errors, but you have failed to prove the existence of any "logic error".Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You're simply repeating yourself here. You assert things that are personal attacks that are not, and then try to argue on that basis that I have obligations that I do not. You continue to conflate policy with your ideas with novel and unsupported results. Further, if I were to enumerate diffs of all your various sub-optimal on-wiki behavior, I would risk of running afoul of this principle. If I am required to assemble an exhaustive list of these issues, I would be then compelled to either delete it again, or file some sort of a dispute resolution using those diffs. I'd much rather that you just started behaving in a collegial manner. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually think a dispute resolution would be preferable to what is going on. Involvment from a third party already made things change a little on comments about mental health, more third opinions will probably help us move on on the other issues. I'm actually surprised that you have not yet filed a dispute resolution, seeing how you think I am so bad a user that I deserve to be constantly reminded of it. Yes, I'm surprised at your unwillingness to draw the attention of uninvolved people who can actually do something about me, which is in sharp contrast with your constant lengthy admonitions (which obviously don't have any effect on me). A bit like how you casually throw the word sockpuppetry about but don't actually start a WP:SPI. So, I think we've come to the point that letting other users be juges in our case is inevitable. If third parties really believe that I acted in the so horrible way you describe, at least I will be free of thje grudge you hold against me, and I will accept without regret any punishement since it will be fair and justified.
The real question is, will you ? As an long-term administrator you seem to have much more to lose than me if such judgment doesn't go your way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I keep educating and reminding you, rather than seeking sanction on you, is that I am merciful, and still hold out hope that you can become a better editor than you have been to date. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as long as you refuse to seek sanction for what you indeed describe as an extremely serious case with possible mental disorder involved (which could greatly endanger WP), I cannot take your attempts to "educate" me seriously, as the only thing you're teaching me is that you don't get punished for having a bad behavior on WP, you're indeed not providing me any incentive to hold different views.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I merely said the possibility of not perceiving reality well existed. Are you asserting that you believe yourself to be a danger to Wikipedia? I gather not since you removed this comment, but I'm restoring it for an explicit denial. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've re-restored the comment--please do not remove it without an appropriate answer, per WP:REDACT. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius is back

In case you didn't know, he is back to very active editing through his Smalleditor account (since 20 August): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Smalleditor&offset=&limit=500&target=Smalleditor 70.253.89.90 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. He's now blocked pending him contacting ArbCom. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was to be no date-related editing on any account until the matter was looked over by ArbCom and a decision made on the original complaint. Such editing (e.g., Gwyneth Paltrow) resumed today as Ohconfucious, shortly after he announced on his talk page that "the Ohconfucius account will from now on make no further mainspace edits". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it's labeled as a script test edit, and it doesn't change what his script was previously accused of changing inappropriately, I think it's reasonable to wait and see what he says about it. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood: you said on his talk page that the block was imposed to ensure "he will address the outstanding issues before continuing any date-related editing". Has he? Because there are date edits in that example, and in many others, including Jennifer Garner, which is a unilateral change of yyyy-mm-dd in the date field to mdy format, although the former is valid according to WP:MOSNUM. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How does labeling an edit a "test" make it OK? Aside from that issue, the following yyyy-mm-dd edit was not labeled as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Fortress&diff=prev&oldid=510058191 70.253.86.236 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Another: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Da_Vinci_Code&diff=prev&oldid=510057761 70.253.86.236 (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Another: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cairnryan&diff=prev&oldid=510729849 70.253.90.179 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Four more: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_Lord&diff=prev&oldid=511021999 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Salmon_of_Doubt&diff=prev&oldid=511021628 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dirk_Gently%27s_Holistic_Detective_Agency&diff=prev&oldid=511021257 (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoffrey_Hughes&diff=prev&oldid=511020770 70.253.79.140 (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Three more: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Brands&diff=prev&oldid=511035986 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Baker&diff=prev&oldid=511035400 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivory_trade&diff=prev&oldid=511035342 70.253.93.229 (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Three more: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_International_School_Hong_Kong&diff=prev&oldid=511786055 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaycee_Chan&diff=prev&oldid=511638606 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Parish&diff=prev&oldid=511637733 70.253.88.49 (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Twenty-five more: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bell_X1_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=512358511 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belfast&diff=prev&oldid=512357370 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beetle&diff=prev&oldid=512355076 (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benzylpiperazine&diff=prev&oldid=512363602 (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benzodiazepine_withdrawal_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=512363323 (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben-Zion_Dinur&diff=prev&oldid=512362983 (7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_van_den_Broek&diff=prev&oldid=512362935 (8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benzodiazepine_misuse&diff=prev&oldid=512362887 (9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Paul&diff=prev&oldid=512543686 (10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nea_Salamis_Famagusta_FC&diff=prev&oldid=512543142 (11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=512367281 (12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bertrand_Delano%C3%AB&diff=prev&oldid=512366891 (13) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernardo_Corradi&diff=prev&oldid=512366839 (14) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Lovell&diff=prev&oldid=512366816 (15) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berlin_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=512366588 (16) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bed_bug_control_techniques&diff=prev&oldid=512364163 (17) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_African_Youth_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=512546152 (18) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Turnbull&diff=prev&oldid=512546114 (19) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Noble_%28footballer%29&diff=prev&oldid=512545586 (20) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aldershot_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512133223 (21) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scunthorpe_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512133150 (22) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartlepool_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512133129 (23) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chesterfield_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512133012 (24) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Hill&diff=prev&oldid=511813752 (25) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_Kasim_Tuet_Memorial_College&diff=prev&oldid=511808352 70.253.88.221 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Twenty-one more: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Gillingham_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512555193 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Bradford_City_A.F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512554192 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Aston_Villa_F.C._%281961%E2%80%93present%29&diff=prev&oldid=512554132 (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Arsenal_F.C._%281886%E2%80%931966%29&diff=prev&oldid=512554025 (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IFK_G%C3%B6teborg&diff=prev&oldid=512553497 (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gillingham_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512553380 (7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duncan_Edwards&diff=prev&oldid=512553080 (8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Manchester_Stadium&diff=prev&oldid=512552192 (9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512551872 (10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Coast_Mariners_FC&diff=prev&oldid=512550524 (11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1903%E2%80%9304_Bradford_City_A.F.C._season&diff=prev&oldid=512578150 (12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wark&diff=prev&oldid=512572815 (13) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunderland_A.F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512572286 (14) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotland_national_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=512567212 (15) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_of_the_Rovers&diff=prev&oldid=512566842 (16) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=York_City_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512562422 (17) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Stoke_City_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512556171 (18) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leek_Town_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512556484 (19) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luton_Town_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512557114 (20) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong_legislative_election,_2012&diff=prev&oldid=512558118 (21) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margate_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=512558855 70.253.72.40 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Another: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_4_%C3%97_100_metres_relay&diff=prev&oldid=513060946 70.253.78.85 (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thirteen more: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=513116401 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_of_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=513115469 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_security&diff=prev&oldid=513114812 (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comedy_Central&diff=prev&oldid=513113783 (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Raspberry_Award&diff=prev&oldid=513111984 (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memory_Stick&diff=prev&oldid=513097118 (7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=513307479 (8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_University&diff=prev&oldid=513124495 (9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hikaru_Nakamura&diff=prev&oldid=513123691 (10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheeling_Jesuit_University&diff=prev&oldid=513120704 (11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sari&diff=prev&oldid=513120326 (12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_parties_in_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=513119074 (13) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomism&diff=prev&oldid=513317763 70.253.76.175 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Twenty-one more: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vadakalai&diff=prev&oldid=513328476 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wave_96.4_FM&diff=prev&oldid=513328506 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greensboro_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=513334066 (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathdwara&diff=prev&oldid=513334085 (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=513334198 (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carla_Bruni&diff=prev&oldid=513334702 (7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharleen_Spiteri&diff=prev&oldid=513356858 (8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region_passport&diff=prev&oldid=513356421 (9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_American&diff=prev&oldid=513356162 (10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Security_Area&diff=prev&oldid=513342447 (11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=513338526 (12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kakinada&diff=prev&oldid=513338405 (13) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Committee_Against_House_Demolitions&diff=prev&oldid=513337097 (14) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=10/40_Window&diff=prev&oldid=513336612 (15) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_Investment_Market&diff=prev&oldid=513336100 (16) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimber_Henry&diff=prev&oldid=513361817 (17) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberwarfare&diff=prev&oldid=513361803 (18) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._Subrahmanyam&diff=prev&oldid=513361238 (19) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karai&diff=prev&oldid=513360414 (20) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Samuel&diff=prev&oldid=513359628 (21) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotse_Delchev&diff=prev&oldid=513328178 70.253.82.65 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Two questions for the IP: what is the name of your former (or, more unlikely, current) account(s)? Are you aware that when an article is split between styles, i.e. half yyyy-mm-dd and half non-machine format, it is perfectly acceptable (indeed, encouraged) to pick one format and make it consistent? Jenks24 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that this has been unarchived (I erroneously had assumed it had been both opened and then closed in my absence), please direct all comments there, rather than here. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ATD

Hi. I've been meaning to approach you about your references to WP:ATD. Your claim that "a delete is only really a policy-based option when merging is not" appears to be a statement of policy, especially as addressed to a closing admin, but it should be expressed more clearly as your interpretation. I referred Mark Arsten to WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011). Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's actually policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." While many deletionists don't like this position, objections to it are simply wrong, and attempts to water down this fundamental premise of our deletion policy are attacks on the encyclopedia's mission itself. There are lots of well-meaning editors who hold the position that you do, but you are simply not correct.

There are plenty of things that should be deleted. G10, 11, and 12 material is utterly appropriate for deletion, even if the articles are well-developed. Many of the other CSD criteria reference material which cannot be effectively worked on by other editors, so those articles are well and truly dead ends. But articles that are simply "bad", or lack notability when there's a merge target, are not legitimate deletion candidates. They don't fall under any of WP:DEL#REASON. What is needed is not a deletion discussion, but rather a series of questions that are too nuanced for our cumbersome, BATTLEGROUND-laden AfD process:

• 1) Should this material even be in Wikipedia? (V, NOT)
• 2) If so, should it be presented as a standalone article? (N, GNG, etc.)
• 3) If so, what material should be emphasized? (BLP, NPOV, DUE, etc.)

Deletion is for material that fails clause 1 and cannot be repaired to meet it. Everything else is about figuring out how best we can present the material that SHOULD be presented. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any support for your interpretation that "it's actually policy"? Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can't read ATD and discern that, I really can't help you. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a step back and restart with a small, manageable piece.

1. "Be aware of alternatives to deletion and only delete an article when another measue (e.g., merging) is not appropriate." (diff, April 2009; discussed at WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1#Deletion is to be a last resort)
2. "Finally, per WP:ATD, a delete is only really a policy-based option when merging is not" (diff, September 2012, archived to User talk:Mark Arsten/Archive the ninth#Ant lion)

Are these statements equivalent? Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Both are simply my paraphrasing of the governing policy ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.") to specific situations. If you were going to argue that merging was somehow not "regular editing", my reply would be that it clearly is in the context of WP:ATD. In fact, the second statement is notably incomplete even though it's accurate, because it doesn't even address tagging, redirection, incubation, or transwikiing, which would all have to be clearly impossible or inappropriate for a deletion to be a policy-based outcome. Oh, wait, stubifying is also covered in the third paragraph of the intro to WP:ATD. So, while I tend to prefer merging, a merger is just one of no less than five other options that must be inapplicable before an outright deletion is a policy-based outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll pose the question in a different way: has your interpretation of ATD changed since 2009? My observation is that it has been static. I grant that alternatives to deletion should be considered and discussed at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Has the underlying deletion policy changed in any manner which should have prompted it to change? Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The page WP:Deletion policy hasn't changed much (13 April 2009–present), but ATD was expanded with specific subsections. Some of its processes have been refined through discussion, such as WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) and WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#G4 and subsequent XfDs (September–November 2011). Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012

Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're Invited to Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012 (Portland, Oregon)!

<font=3>WIKIPEDIA LOVES LIBRARIES: MULTNOMAH COUNTY EDIT-ATHON! You're invited to participate in Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, an edit-athon hosted by Multnomah County Library for the purpose of improving stubs relating to Multnomah County. The event will take place on Saturday, October 27, 2012 from 2:00-4:00pm at the Central Library in downtown Portland. You can view details about this Wiki Loves Libraries event here. Be sure to RSVP and share the results of your work HERE. Click here for more information about meetups in Portland! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I no longer live in the greater Portland metro area. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Three-Lobed Burning Eye history merge

Why did you histmerge two dissimilar articles together at Three-Lobed Burning Eye? Your reasoning at WP:Articles for deletion/Three-Lobed Burning Eye and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC justifies moving the fictional monster article out of the way to Three-Lobed Burning Eye (monster) and the magazine to the vacated title. The history merge created nonsensical diffs (e.g., 1, 2) between revisions from the separate pages. Both WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and WP:Merge and delete#History fixing discourage histmerges in this situation. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the magazine is named after the literary reference, and given that the literary reference didn't merit its own article, it is entirely appropriate to have some reference to its etymology in the magazine. That, combined with the magazine no longer needing disambiguation, made it the simplest path, in my view. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you please repair this to be two separate pages? Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? It would be far simpler to finish it as a merge. Are you asserting that my assessment that the "monster" bit would never merit a separate article was wrong? Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I explained the problems in my opening comment. I agree with the AfD's conclusion that a standalone article is not appropriate, and I don't see how your question is relevant. I requested a fix at the existing section WP:Administrators' noticeboard#fix article history. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you appear to be not understanding what merge I had intended, I've now gone ahead and done it. The current article now relies on elements from both the antecedent articles which have been histmerged into that location. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I added attribution in an edit summary to User:Asfuller using a dummy edit, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, List of authors. I will also add {{Copied}}s if the history is split. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Anthony Appleyard fulfilled my request; details are at the AN section. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The AN discussion was archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#fix article history. I placed {{Copied}}s on Talk:Three-lobed Burning Eye (creature), Talk:Three-lobed Burning Eye, and Talk:The Haunter of the Dark. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your notifications, but I think you're assuming a level of connectedness to the topic, or investment in its outcome, that I simply do not have. If someone thought my solution sufficiently bad to undo it, then I guess that's probably the last time I'll handle a similar situation in that manner. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Müdigkeit (talk · contribs) has requested that your rights be removed on meta. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's got to be among the more bizarre things that've happened to me on Wikipedia, actually. Well, or sort-of-maybe-if-no-one-was-paying-attention-might-have-happened to me, at any rate. Thanks for the heads up. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Date delinking

I wasn't sure whether you'd seen AGK's request on the Date delinking entry under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Any chance of some action, or is this going down for the third time? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I've answered there. However, I get the feeling you're expecting me to be a voice to articulate the dispute, rather than just ensuring that Ohconfucius doesn't duck out on the process. Is that right? Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As a former software engineer, I'm still appalled by the length of time he kept using his tool-based editing with defective software after being told of problems and continued to delete accessdates, but it doesn't seem that Arbcom is concerned here about that sort of loose-cannon behavior. Only the fact that some of these deleted dates were ISO dates, and in other cases that such dates were converted against the rules of a previous decision, seem to allow this case to be here at all. And it looks like he has managed to duck out of the process, since the whole is about to be archived with hardly a slap on the wrist.

If it's appropriate for you to make the salient points, and Ohconfucius did in fact violate policy, I think it would be a good thing to summarize. But if it isn't, then it's probably due for the archive. I do appreciate your time: this is my first time at a Request Clarification, and I'm figuring things out as I watch the process play out. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of input that needs to be seen by the whole committee. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll leave it in your hands, then. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Admin

When your account was made is missing from the list of Admins at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=2000 and I was wondering if you could take out the time to fix it. My thanks. CHCSPrefect (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would, if I or the system actually remembered the date. My account was made sufficiently early in Wikipedia's history--I signed up long before I started editing--that I've been using the system default date of 1/1/2005, but that's almost certainly not right. So... I've got a relatively old account. Jclemens (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Engerica

86.31.177.6 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just curious to know why the page was deleted? If it was due to a lack of content, I'm happy to rectify that situation with links to relevant content, and using my knowledge of the band, can make the page a useful and enjoyable read for fans of the band, and UK music history in general.

I've restored it per your implied request. What it needs is not more content per se, but more independent reliable sources (e.g. music reviews in newspapers, trade press, etc.) to demonstrate that the band existed and is important enough ("notable") to merit a Wikipedia article. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

More information

Hello Jclemens, Could you please add more information to this image's description http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electrosurgery.jpg In what hospital was it taken? What is the name of the surgeon? I'd also will appreciate the links to your works that were published in academic journals and magazines. Cheers.--108.60.139.170 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have permission to share any of that information. That's mostly because I never asked, but this is 3.5 years ago now, and that is the reason I never provided it when I uploaded the photo. Neither the surgeon nor the location (nor the patient, presumably) have a Wikipedia article, and since the photo was taken focusing on the technique, there was no good reason to.

As far as my various published works, none of them are relevant to Wikipedia, and I've seen no reason to list them on-wiki. If you have a particular or specific interest, you can make an account, and email me using the "E-mail this user" functionality once it's confirmed, and I'll respond appropriately in email. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops!

Heads up: Oops! You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper way here T. trichiura Infect me 14:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

How can you say that things like copyvio are sacrosanct and I've spent the past two days being subjected to endless personal attacks for trying to keep copyvio from the main page and have been accused of all kinds of conspiracies. This after a year of putting up with bullying by a user whose behavior was apparently okay. Can you please point me a., to the request for arbitration in regards to the TFA case and b., to the original findings on the Malleus / civility case? I'd like the time to read them carefully before being accused of hollowness again. Am trying very hard to get up to speed. It's Friday night, ate pizza late, and you guys ain't slowing down for anything. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with your copyvio battles; point me at them and I'll block editors appropriately. Copyvio and civility are in the same boat: how Wikipedia is is not as it should be, and we're all aware of that... but for some reason, otherwise decent editors have been hand-wringing over what is or is not incivil. As for the links, I don't keep them on hand myself, but I go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index and search there as needed. Let me know if you can't find what you want in those search boxes and I'll try my hand. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Everyone knows every little word uttered by Malleus, but when an editor spends an entire year being bullied, and spends a good chunk of the last few days being maligned and nothing is done about it, the double standard is just astounding. I'm tired and logging out. You might start by having a look at Iridescent's page, my page, WP:TFAR among others. But it's quite honestly all over the place. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've provided the link to the TFAR case. --Rschen7754 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

More on Malleus

I'd like to add my express unhappiness with your over-the-top comment that Malleus is not and never has been a Wikipedian. That's a ridiculous comment that illustrates the fact that this is an out of control heretic burning better than any other words ever could. Far more shameful and offensive than any huffy puffing that Malleus has ever delivered. You should consider standing down from ArbCom, frankly. I have no confidence in your judgment and sense of proportion, for one. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

! --Rschen7754 03:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked. Alexandria (chew out) 04:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I just came here considering to do the same thing. I won't, because you made your incivil comment some time before I noticed it, someone else did it first and there is no sense repeating it, and I don't like civility blocks in the first place.

But you just perfectly illustrated a point made repeatedly by Malleus and others: there's a big difference between "being civil" and "not using naughty words". I myself wouldn't call anyone a "dishonest twat" and I haven't looked into the specific context in which Malleus said it, but I can't see it being worse than saying that someone "has never been a Wikipedian" who has helped innumerable editors improve Wikipedia and who has contributed massively to content-building. Someone becomes a member of the Wikipedia community by contributing to Wikipedia, not by ascribing to your preferred set of principles; otherwise we might as well rename it the Wikipedia cult. Ucucha (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a Wikipedian

"It's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Wikipedia community". In your opinion, but not in the opinion of many others. If you're suggesting it's appropriate to state personal opinion as fact, you should have no problem with many "incivil" comments - they're his opinion, after all. If you're not suggesting that, I would ask that you take this opportunity to amend your comment. I don't generally believe in templating the regulars, so consider this a civility warning; I'm sure you'd agree that holding others to the civility policy while ignoring it yourself is completely inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I don't believe the pillars are subject to wholesale amendment by the community. One doesn't have to like them to be a Wikipedian, one merely has to follow them--all of them--to be a Wikipedian. The fact that you, or even a majority of active editors, might disagree doesn't matter one bit: the WMF funds our existence on the basis of the pillars; we are all subject to them. Malleus has had plenty of instruction in what civil behavior is or is not, and he has chosen to not act in accordance with that feedback. He's chosen his path, as is his right. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought of giving you a warning too. I agree with the general opinion of the supporting arbs, but the way you expressed it was way harsher than it needed to be. Sure, you clarified your definition of Wikipedian, but there's still no reasonable context in which that is acceptable (unless you equated Wikipedian = a person who plagiarizes and said he was not a Wikipedian). --Rschen7754 02:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Harsher than it needed to be? I disagree. It was my best effort to hit just the right level of provocative statement needed to reframe the discussion in terms of what it means to be a Wikipedian. For what it's worth, the next time someone leaks the ArbCom mailing lists, it will be evident that I've been thinking along these lines for weeks. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I asked you weeks ago to put your thoughts on civility into the current RFC so that the community could see where you were coming from. You've failed to do that, despite my multiple requests that you (and other arbitrators who hold strong opinions) do so. The fact that you've refused to put your concepts forward to gauge the extent of community concurrence with them suggests to me that you're well aware that your interpretation of the relevant policies is out of step with that of the community. So...how about putting forward the proposal you posted to Arbcom-L? Run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes. Risker (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

May I recall to your memory my Arbcom-L posting of 10 October, where I said in part "I think the fundamental problem with the RfC--any RfC--on civility is that the community cannot solve it, because participation is not restricted TO the community--that is, those who agree with all five pillars." Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are refusing to share the fullness of your opinions on how to address civility problems with the community because you don't believe that people who disagree with you are part of the community? Seriously, Jclemens...just post here what you posted on the list. Let's see how the community responds. Your refusal to do so pretty much invalidates any actions you take based on your personal civility values. The community has a right to know the basis on which an arbitrator is voting. Risker (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be a rather one-sided disclosure, don't you think? Are you giving me permission to disclose what you've had to say on the matter as well? Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one saying someone is not part of the community, Jclemens, you are. I posted my views onwiki during the Civility enforcement arbitration case request; you'll recall that I proposed that what I perceived to be similar degrees of incivility should be sanctioned in the same way. There was no significant support for my proposal, either from the community or from other arbitrators. Risker (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I endorsed what you proposed in the civility case, but questioned whether it was the most effective manner to proceed. See my replies of 23:25, 30 September 2012 and 01:29, 1 October 2012 here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I specified "significant" support, which I would categorize as at least 40% of the participating committee members. Risker (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, then, as long as we're clear that I wasn't opposing your ideas. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider what you said to be civil? That seems to be an important question here. --Rschen7754 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

1) If I considered it uncivil, would I have said it? 2) On what basis would it be considered uncivil? While the first question should clearly be read as rhetorical, I am actually interested in your response to the second. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." (WP:CIV). I find it interesting to note that quite a few arbs have distanced themselves from your statement. And should ArbCom be in the business of making "provocative" statements? --Rschen7754 03:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement isn't directed to Malleus and doesn't expect a reply from him. And at least four or five arbs clearly disagree with me, and I knew that when I posted it. But stating unpopular truths in the interest of furthering and focusing discourse is different than incivility. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But he read it, right? And your fellow arbs had to apologize for you, even the ones voting to support (SirFozzie). I believe that Malleus is a person of integrity. The primary problem he has is that he can't keep his opinions to himself sometimes. I believe that's a serious problem, of course, and I'm definitely on the side of enforcing civility here. But that's exactly what you did here - denigrated another editor of this site. You're welcome to hold the opinion that he's no longer a Wikipedian, but stating it publicly is another issue entirely. Arbitrators should be held to a higher standard. --Rschen7754 03:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if he read it or not. He recently commented elsewhere that "I don't have even the slightest interest in anything you have to say" Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

[10] Noted the revision... still a bit off, but better. --Rschen7754 03:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea why it might be considered uncivil to say that someone who has devoted hours to this site, who has thousands of good and perfectly policy-compliant edits to articlespace, who has contributed loads to the encyclopedia (y'know, that thing we're all supposed to be building?), is not a member of our community? To dismiss someone's participation by "refram[ing]" the discussion according to your own limited definition of what it means to be a Wikipedian? To make a hurtful and deliberately provocative comment just to further a point? To blatantly and cruelly dismiss the whole of a human being because you disagree with a part? Either the answer to your first question is "yes", or your competence is seriously in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It was an act of shunning which is the deepest rejection possible. It's beyond incivility. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Going to point out that in the Ottava Rima case, ArbCom did at least treat him with dignity by recognizing his contributions, even as he was sent away. --Rschen7754 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think comments like this are far more insulting than a thousand "twat" comments and was somewhat shocked to see such a comment being made by an Arb. Essentially, you were saying to Malleus that all of the time and effort he has put into this site is somehow negated because of a single human flaw. If someone said a thing like that to me it would be hard to resist cursing them out. It would be like pushing to fire someone from a soup kitchen where they have worked for years because they kept smoking pot during break and then telling them they were never really about helping the poor and homeless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What if the soup kitchen prohibited pot smoking during breaks by their employees?--MONGO 04:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would that justify telling them they contributed nothing to helping the poor? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

To be accurate, it would not justify telling someone they were not sincere about helping the poor. No one doubts Malleus has contributed considerably to Wikipedia, but the comment that "he was never a member of the community" is akin to saying he never really cared about Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That was a very shitty thing to say and you know it. I don't care whether it was civil or not and that's not really the point. You knew it was a shitty thing to say when you posted it and it's not even true. The comment also needlessly adds fuel to the fire and will undoubtedly come back to (deservedly) bite you in the ass. WWNYBD? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Next Internet meme. --Rschen7754 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A very forceful way to put it...thought provoking even. I might have been more inclined to fully agree with the concept of it had you phrased it as at some point awhile ago...Malleus decided to no longer be a Wikipedian. However, I feel you are correct in that the pillars are paramount and it reminds me how important it is that we all do our best to uphold those pillars...and that they bind us all.--MONGO 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a very good point. I think I'll amend my statement to incorporate it, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I have to say, I think it's deeply ironic that you would listen to advice of MONGO, an editor who had a dispute with Malleus on the 9/11 page because of issues of neutrality, when in my view, NPOV is our strongest pillar. It's very easy to re-focus a dialogue (he's incivil and needs to be banned) thus hushing a voice that speaks out for balanced content. In the end we have to think about the product we deliver to our readers and in my view that gets overlooked by POV pushing agenda driven editors all too often. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was promoting conspiracy theories, a violation of NPOV and the undue weight clause...it isn't POV pushing to use reliable reputable references to support the known evidence...IT IS POV pushing to promote fringe theories in non-fringe articles. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained, but it seems straightforward enough to me. Balanced content...at what expense? At the expense of the known facts...? We have articles that go into the conspiracy theories ad nauseum...they exist for a reason. Malleus brought forth "evidence" that the U.S. didn't send fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes...I found a dozen reliable sources that indicated that was incorrect and I added it to the article...I presented the evidence to Malleus and he laughed it off, instead wishing to cite a fringe story that was rife with misinformation and inaccuracies. Exactly who is the POV pusher? The one defending the known evidence or the one pushing fringe theories?--MONGO 23:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The one pushing a POV (you) and then lying about it (you) to get another Wikipedian into trouble. You are beneath despicable, MONGO. --John (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Has it been a year? I thought you said you'd stay away from me for a year. My comment above is fact...I have diffs to prove it. I am neither a liar nor beneath despicable, yet you have unblocked Malleus and defended his actions almost universally. At what point is the indefensible finally indefensible?--MONGO 17:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry I missed the above post in the ensuing melee, Truthkeeper. Fact is, I accept advice that makes sense regardless of where it originates. While everyone else was telling me I was completely off base, MONGO posited an improvement that I could not help but admit was right: I don't have an infinite history with Malleus, and can't speak to how things started, even if I've never seen anything other than his current, problematic side. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your response here to me is what I find deeply disturbing. You say that you support the five pillars, yet in this thread and on the one below you've been given examples of copyvio; above I mentioned an example of NPOV and I think this comment illustrates as well as the one above, that on pages such as September 11 attacks NPOV is hard to achieve. That you can't speak to how things started is the attitude of a suit who doesn't bother to look around the factory floor who responds with "I don't know about this." This is a problem and one that needs to be rectified, because without knowing what's happening on the factory floor, you've elevated yourself, distanced yourself, lost sight of the real problems, and therefore can't be trusted to make decisions about those very factory workers. This is a large and extremely important project and if it's to "managed" by a small group of elected managers, then please spend some time in the trenches to get a different viewpoint of what's really happening on this project. Incivility is rampant, and not the bad word type of incivility; tag-teaming and socking are routinely used for POV pushing; and we have thousands of identified pages filled with copyvio issues without the manpower to fix them. A Malleus is a problem only if he's made to be one and only looking at him is extremely myopic and counterproductive. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, your actions are an absolute disgrace to ArbCom for daring to say something like this about a content contributor. You should be banned for six months, not Malleus. You disgust me. Resign from the committee now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't offended by your original, unredacted comment. I think the topic brings out a lot of strong feelings, and even if I thought you were over the line, I respect and acknowledge that occasional errors are part of our being human. Still, having said that, I appreciate your efforts to refocus the statement on the divergent ideas, rather than individual personalities, involved. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you reconcille your ideal "on the divergent ideas, rather than individual personalities", with making statements like, uh, this person is not, ever was "a wikipedian". That goes to the core. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(person) (is || is not) (status), where status is an abstract concept with a non-trivial definition, is fundamentally a statement of an idea, even though a person is the subject of the sentence. Or, if you like, the proposition could be phrased as a proof: "Wikipedians follow all five pillars; Malleus does not follow pillar 4; therefore, Malleus is not a Wikipedian". Contrast that to calling another editor a "Dishonest fuck"; even if we granted for the sake of argument that the first statement could be deduced (accuracy or inaccuracy can; dishonesty implies motive to deceive, and I have yet to see that proven), the latter is gratuitous insult. Jclemens (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind paying me the basic curtsey of answearing the question in fucking English. Its not too much to ask, considering 10 hours ago you were basically calling a friend of mine a non person as far as this project goes, and you were pontificated from on high, judging from the guilded tone you wrote in. We are not all abstract though experament, midgames bloody whatyever game yourself and risker were playing that you lost, some of us are content only trench living non nonsence no bullshit [(person) (is || is not) (status), You need to catch youself] real life here and now people. Guru. Ceoil (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously folks, the greatest sin on wikipedia is not what Malleus or indeed Jclemens says about anybody but the time wasted discussing it on talk pages and pretend law courts. Time is precious as they say and here we are with a website with amazing content potential and you choose to spend your hours on here discussing civility and how one should act. If you simply ignored it and got on editing you;d cut 90% of the wikidrama automatically because its the reaction that sparks things off and makes a bad situation ten times worse. I might respect some of the editors on things like arb, but my personal opinion is that any forum or talk page which is dedicated to discussing the conduct of editors rather than the encyclopedia is as worse a crime as any on wikipedia. I understand that for certain "repeat offenders" then voting them out might be necessary, but we are not here to be perfect, temperless, "civil" human beings, we are supposed to be here to produce content as Nikki did at least say. If you all simply shut the heck up and got on with focusing on content, Jclemens wouldn't need to be warned, and Malleus wouldn't be forced out of wikipedia and things would continue. My observation is that yes, at times Malleus can irk any one of us off with something he says, he did so with me only last week, but if his more "colourful" words are simply ignored and drama is not thrown his way then I think he'd be a lot more productive and happier on here. When he is purely focusing on content he is as good an editor as anybody on here, almost a joy to work with from what I've seen when he is not distracted with pointless bollocks. Yes, he could avoid certain situations, but you make it what it is, there;s no smoke without fire, think about it. If you put such energy and will to comment on such things into article instead we'd be massively better off. We rely on our most dedicated editors as it is but even that is greatly reduced by those who spend their time debating things like this. Sorry, but it had to be said. If I had my way, aside from allowing idle friendly chit chat, I'd ban any discussions on wikipedia not related to improving content and wipe out the bureacratic system, I believe its more trouble than its worth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Blofeld, weith all due respect, I dont know or care about you, and get re this folk lets all whatever, get bent. I asked clemens a qestion, he answered with a reply thast was so crypuic as to be a fuck off, so Im asking again, what you have to say I couldnt care less. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Note a wider and more sever disconnect; Blofield, I dont respect you because of you passing shit like this at DYK, where it was at the time sourced to blogs, clearly copyvio, and the nominator clearly young and clearly interested in doing the minimum to get it through at all costs, and you passed it. Thats an example form just this week that I had to hand, thats why I dont respect you, want you to answear for a voting arb so he doesnt have to bother, and typicl of the shit, actual content people put up with each and every fucking day, and then the likes of clemens, from on high mind you, says we dont deal with poor sourced, copyvio medal gathering fucktards like you with nice enough words? Gimme a break already. Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"copyvio medal gathering fucktards like you". Are you for real?? Coming from the guy who has stars displayed all across his user page mantlepiece? You're calling me a trophy collector? Haha, you're commenting on Malleus's incivility? That's far worse than anything I've ever heard Malleus say and is worthy of an instant block but I bet nobody even warns you let alone blocks you because you're a content contributor, which is highly ironic in the first place as people appear to believe Malleus is only tolerated for that. In fact it rather reminds me in tone of an indefinitely banned fellow Irishman named Mick, of similar temperament. In regards to the 5 pillars, utter tosh, anybody who has ever constructively contributed content to wikipedia is a wikipedian, wikipedia is not a religion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Difference between you and me is substance. Or did my link, from this week, escape you. Know what you are getting into befopre you tagle, and drop the irish shit. How amazing this all is, but how perfect too. YUou are baiting me on a personal level, hoping I loose my cool. Good man. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

18th Dye, first page listed on your user page yeah that's brilliance! I did nothing to bait you personally or even directly comment at you on a personal level or anybody on arb, you made it personal by your disgusting lowly response. I said in a friendly way its an unfortunate waste of time discussing things which are not important. And frankly your language and attitude is far worse than anything I've ever seen from Malleus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for so blantly displaying your shallowness. Couldnt have said it better myself. And no, Malleus has nothing on me, Im a new level of horribel, how astute of you. Jclemens has good friends indeed. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You've proved me right though that sitting around and discussing "civility" fuels incivility. Thankyou for proving my point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there, very nice. Surely, clemens you have better attack dogs than a person who just this week passed an article with blog sources and copyvio. 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Blofield, you got if you have anything better than "I know you are" then say it, cause Im sick of you now. What you do and me pointing it out is more important than keeping any retarded notion of civility. We are opposites, deal with it. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil and Dr. Blofeld, this isn't helping in any possible way. Please stop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok Brad, but Ceoil and Dr. Blofeld's admitally bad behavour does not get clemens off the hook. My question stands. And who the hell does he think he is to dismiss me like that. [11] Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Not a Wikipedian" did you mean it as a compliment? I am asking because as John said oldid=518904576 " If this statement represents our community, I no longer identify with that community. A sad thing to say after nearly 7 years but there you have it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.37.48 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh

I'm just hearing about this now, apparently. While I do think it could have been worded better, I do completely agree with the meaning of your statement about Malleus. And it could probably apply to quite a few more people, besides.

Is there an ANI/AN/whatever on your statement yet that I can comment in? Silverseren^C 04:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. There's something going on at WT:RFAR, and I suspect someone may start an RfC/U at some point, but I'd pretty much expected the upcoming election to be a defining referendum on my position. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's funny how society complains about how, on the internet, you see the true sides of people where they are nasty and rude and horrible to others. And yet, when we try to hold Wikipedia editors to a higher standard than that. Really, to a standard of normalcy that is exhibited in society at large, you get people complaining about that instead. I guess they would just prefer being allowed to be as nasty to other people as they want to, civility be damned. Silverseren^C 04:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Somehow, there's a substantial faction of Wikipedia users to whom my saying matter-of-factly that Malleus isn't a community member because he doesn't abide by our social contract is somehow more offensive than Malleus' own conduct. I'm trying to remember the last time a sitting arbitrator was blocked for speaking his mind while doing his job, and nothing's coming to mind--although I'm sure some Wiki-historians can clue me in if there was. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-historian weighing in: The community does tend to be much more bluster than action when it comes to blocking sitting arbs. I'm not aware of anybody except me ever actually doing it. (My block definitely wasn't for speaking his mind—for the opposite, if anything.) Bishonen | talk 15:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

It's not only more offensive, it's dangerous. That argument has been responsible for every war and every atrocity in human history. You've exceeded the remit of arbcom when you chose to speak freely about things that you shouldn't, thereby doing the community a huge favor and unmasking your real thought process on this matter. You argue that you have the right to dehumanize a person, and you've done this in a most inhumane way using mechanistic logic and procedures to get from A to B. You see nothing wrong with this, which is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is actually that no-one sees a problem with Malleus doing it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Speaking his mind while doing his job" - so now personal attacks are okay while voting as an arb? --Rschen7754 08:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"A sitting arbitrator blocked for speaking his mind"-kind of a kick in the stones, huh? Good thing you didn't say "sycophant". Joefromrandb (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

JClemens, so you are running again for ArbCom? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so. It seems somehow un-sporting for him to not give me a chance to vociferously vote oppose and encourage anyone watching this saga to do the same. We don't elect arbitrators to declare who is or is not a "real" editor, nor enforce their view of what a "real" editor is - and we don't give anyone, not even the Foundation, the right to define a Wikipedian in a nice little box. Ironholds (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are, of course, two obvious problems with the idiotic statement Jclemens made. First it's an undisguised attempt (whether intentional or not) to cast Malleus as "not one of us". This makes passing sanctions easier because it engenders and us vs. them mentality. That is the kind of incivility (which does not involve a curse word) which we overlook here in the community - low level nasty jibes at each other. A 24 hour block was entirely justified and fair, I am sure a proper apology and retraction by Jclemens would have seen him unblocked. Secondly Jclemens exhibits a personal opinion; Arbcom does this way too much anyway, his was just a gregarious example of the issue. Expressing an opinion about parties to a dispute outright invalidates any chance of committee members' views being worth listening to as anything more than the view of another editor. Arbcom should dispassionately hear evidence, weigh up the balances and decide on the best solutions to keep Wikipedian ticking over. Jclemens appears merely have been using his support vote to attack Malleus based on his own view. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We need a "What Tom Said" template. Ironholds (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was really hoping for some sanity to emerge here

From our own article on Community, "In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness". The 5 Pillars are the common conditions that affect the identity/degree of cohesiveness in the community that is Wikipedia. As explained by Jclemens above (and quite well according to logic - those who call it dismissive might not have read it very clearly).

By definition, those that do not meet nor follow the common conditions are typically not considered part of the community. For example, I am not considered to be a part of the local Muslim community because I am not of that faith group. Similarly, the local artistic community in my town considers membership as those who "create, promote, and earn at least a portion of their income from the visual arts". I only meet two out of three, and therefore am not considered a full member of the community.

I understand the point that Jclemens was trying to make: how can someone be considered to be part of the Wikipedia community if they refuse to accept or follow at least one of the conditions of recognition inside that community. This is a philosophical statement, and most certainly cannot be construed as a personal attack towards anyone. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins; I've seen you occasionally use a foul mouth, blow off steam or bite newbies (and disagreed with the attitude you exhibited). Given your relative edit count to Malleus does that mean there is a point at which one too many "fuck" makes you not part of the community? Or indeed, me? --Errant ^(chat!) 14:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

At what point on Wikipedia has saying the work "fuck" been considered uncivil or violate WP:5P? The community has held otherwise unless it's used as a personal attack. I'm not certain exactly where it's been shown that I bite newbies, as none come to mind. Nice red-herring though :-) By the way, I'm NOT commenting specifically on a user's individual case!!!!!! Everyone knows I have my own comments on Civility as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't very nice of me to say that, was it? (p.s. I am confident I could go through any editors history and find somewhere they bit a newbie, even mine, it's too easy to do). The key issue is: Jclemens was not just making a philosophical point, he was making the point and then applying it to another editor. It was obviously nonsense; incivility is far from well delineated in the community, and groups regularly disagree over what constitutes "civil". I always remember the example of someone moving unfinished articles out of another editors user space & nominating them for GA, to which the editor asked "what the fuck are you doing" and was blocked. Who was the least civil? The trouble with statements such as Jclemens' is that it deals in absolute viewpoints where the swearing/rudeness is too much (don't get me wrong, in the last few months Malleus has seemed to be poking the bear for just such a showdown, which is annoying) and therefore they are no longer of the body. Are you sure you want to agree with such a viewpoint? One of the other pillars is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", so following the logic is there are point at which too little article work makes an editor not part of the social contract? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're making my point for me: at what point is someone going to have the balls to finally once and for all define civility/lack of civility and close the philosophical circle that keeps coming around and chomping us on the ass? Someone who was elected to that role actually drew a line in the sand ... was it the right line? Who knows? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No. The line here was not over what is/isn't civil. The line is at what point enough people dislike an editor that a ban will stick. As pointed out by many people, in the last few days other editors have thrown around nastiness and incivility (calling each other fucktards and so on) without hardly a batting of eyelids. That is the problem, we are pounding on an individual not the problem - because if we ban Malleus that means no one will have to worry about civility again until the next long term editor pisses off enough people to cause regular disruption. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, I don't dislike anyone (including MF). After all, I know none of these people in R/L. I may disagree with tactics and dislike behaviour, but On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That was a very good explanation for it and it was in line with my understanding of the meaning. And I wholly agree. The issue is, as Errant is an example, a lot of other editors aren't even going to read your logic, but instead attack you for daring to agree with Jclemens. Whether this is because they want to steadfastly support Malleus regardless of the circumstances (which is common) or for some other arbitrary reason, no amount of logic is even going to dent their mindset. The first comparison that pops into my mind is Russia's ignorant, unwavering support of Syria, regardless of the horrible things Syria's government does. Silverseren^C 17:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

but instead attack you; haven't you just done the same thing? Bwilkins put together some logic; I should hope that if you read carefully you will see how I have shown the problems with his analysis. I also tried to show how unpleasant Jclemens comment can feel! --Errant ^(chat!) 21:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

An appeal to your best side

Disclosure; to the best of my knowledge and memory, I have not interacted with Malleus on any aspect of the project. I am not acting on his behalf, defending his actions nor criticizing them. I've been criticized before for supposedly supporting people subject to ArbCom review. I want to make it perfectly clear that my comments here should not be in any way construed as commentary, positive or negative, with respect to Malleus nor indeed with his actions at all.

Jclemens, with respect, I think two things need to happen with regards to your future actions with respect to Malleus.

1. Your presence at the civility enforcement request as an arbitrator has become a focus of the dispute. Given that a great deal of rancor has developed with respect to your actions there, most especially noting that even some arbitrators have viewed your actions with distaste, it would be in the best interests of the project if you recuse from the request.
2. I appreciate that your withdrew the comments about Malleus never having been a Wikipedian. However, regardless of Malleus' actions or opinions of your comments, the right thing to do would be to apologize to Malleus, preferably on his talk page, directly addressed to him. The clarifications you have made on the requests page and elsewhere fall significantly short of this. Apologizing to Malleus does not make him right or wrong. It is simply the right thing for you to do. I invite you to do so.

Respectfully submitted, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How about Malleus apologize to the dozens of administrators and many dozens of editors he has insulted, threatened and bullied? Some view the inaction of defending our five pillars with distaste...why aren't the arbitrators that refuse to sanction in any manner a known repeat offender being asked to recuse?--MONGO 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• MONGO, thank you for your comments. However, this is not about Malleus. Whether Malleus is right or wrong, committed grave mistakes, or what have you is not relevant here. The simple thing is that Jclemens, in the minds even of some of his fellow arbitrators, made a mistake. While he has retracted the statement, an apology would do a great deal to correct the issue. I hope he can see through to doing so. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think even the revision is inappropriate. Saying Malleus "at some point ceased to be a Wikipedian" is a minor adjustment that doesn't even come close to blunting the offensive nature of the comment. However, I do agree that Jclemens should strike out his vote and recuse. The vote is far too tainted to remain in place, especially since it could easily be the deciding vote with the way things currently stand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need to recuse merely because emotions are running high. (Arbcom acts as a committee, not as individuals - and we shouldwant those individuals to openly communicate.) The mistake here wasn't whether Jclemens (or any other individual arb) expressed an interpretation of the situation (it's what we ask each of them to do, whether we agree or not), it's how he communicated it.

And so, I think I would endorse your (HS's) second point. That a mea culpa apology on malleus' talk page, while not mandatory (we should never mandate one Wikipedian to apologise to another), I think would be an appropriate step. Jclemens has already shown (by refactoring) that they understand that the phrasing was unfortunate (to say the least), so I wouldn't think that they would be adverse to such an apology. - jc37 17:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think, if only for the sake of appearances, that Jclemens should recuse from the case. Should it come down to 7/6 in favor of a ban, I do not want to see Malleus stop contributing for six months because of a vote that essentially rejects the amount of quality work he has contributed to this site.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely looking at the principle. We can't have situations where emotions running high should be a cause to force any arbs to recuse. It defeats the purpose of having them as members of a committee to take on these tasks.

And regardless of whether you or I agree with his reasons or not, Jclemens is welcome to cast his "vote" for whatever reasons he may choose.

As for the motion itself, I'm not a fan for other reasons (as I noted on the page). - jc37 18:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly we don't want Arbs being forced to recuse every time an editor strikes a nerve, but there are limits to that tolerance. Admins, Arbs especially, should act in a manner consistent with the responsibility accorded to their position. If Jclemens is, for one reason another, too caught up in the emotion of the situation to recognize the seriousness of his comments then he really shouldn't be adjudicating the dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And that is something that we leave to the arbs themselves to determine.

Regardless, I think NYB has a good point - the elections are around a month or so away. a.) questions of "no confidence can easily be handled there, and b.) does anyone think that this ban (if passed) can't be subsequently reviewed by the committee after the election?

One of the interesting things about Wikipedia is: Nothing is truly permanent. (Well, outside of physically affecting the servers, of course.) - jc37 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that Jclemens should cease to be an Arb. Should he recuse himself from the case in the near future then I would consider that acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A thought

I don't have any expectation of any responses to this, but it's just a thought I had.

While bwilkins' philosophical points above are good points, the issue, which I hope by now most might recognise, is that others' saw your (jclemens) comments as commenting on the person.

I haven't looked today, but my recollection about collegiate civility concerning discussing content on Wikipedia is typically: comment on the content, not on the person.

So when talking about behaviour (and here is my question): should it not be: comment on the behaviour of the person, not on the person themselves?

In addition, I think you recognised that "never" was an unfortunate choice of words. but then combining it with a verb of being (was) in reference to a group label (Wikipedian), turned it into an "all or nothing" statement. So by implication of your words, nothing MF did qualified him to be considered a Wikipedian. And that's something that I don't believe you meant, as I have a hard time thinking anyone would suggest that intentionally.

You have subsequently struck your comments, repurposing them to apply to MF's behavioual choices. But it looks like the damage has been done, and emotions are now running high.

One interesting point to make is that (unlike blocks, even indefinite ones), when banning an editor, we are saying that that individual is no longer welcome in the Wikipedian community. But even then (except perhaps in the case of an SPA for clear vandalism, such as WoW), we don't say that that person was never a Wikipedian. Merely suggesting that they no longer are.

Anyway, this all is just a thought. The more we focus on the behavioural choices of the person, and not on the person per se, the better, I think.

YMMV, of course. - jc37 17:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it not commenting on the behavior when one says that, because an editor has been routinely breaking one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, that they haven't been a Wikipedian since they began breaking that rule? That's commenting on their behavior of breaking the rule, not on the person themselves. Essentially, if you continuously do not follow the rules, purposefully don't follow them even, then you can't be considered to be a Wikipedian or a part of the Wikipedia community. Silverseren^C 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's commenting on behaviour up the the point where he said another editor was not a Wikipedian. Then it is just another uncivil comment and poke in the ribs. I could get on board with a point about the five pillars, our social contract, and that when behaviour reaches a certain point then the only remaining way to remove the bad behaviour is to remove the editor. But the key philosophical issue is: when making the personal dig Jclemens broke the exact same social contract he was poking Malleus with (of course: I suppose one could bring in logic to argue that Jclemens doesn't consider Malleus of the body, therefore he is not bound by the social contract when commenting. But see my other comments on this page.). Dispassionately, I'm not really too fussed about what happens to either of these editors - but I do think our admins should be held to a significantly higher standard of behaviour, and our arbs higher still. In this case Jclemens' behaviour brings the office of arbitrator into disrepute. It's disappointing to the see the vitriol here levelled at Jclemens - but I think his behaviour was significantly lacking and requires some community response. The precedent of marking someone "not a Wikipedian" is, philosophically a very narrow path to tread. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the philosophical point laid out above.

Note that your comments are in the present tense: "...can't be considered to be a Wikipedian...". This gives the implication of "can't currently, from this point forward".

What Jcelemens was seeming to suggest was both: from this point forward, and from this point backward. And also added the sense that all edits disqualified MF, not just the problematic ones.

That may not be what he meant to say, but clearly, it's how it apparently came across due to his choice of wording. - jc37 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say from the point that MF began breaking the rules, which would indeed be in the past. However, I understand what you mean, but I also note that Jclemens' meaning was quite clear and it was only faltered by mis-wording. I think it's ridiculous that it's become this full-blown thing, though it's not surprising at the same time, as it seems to be being further aggravated by MF's defenders. Furthermore, I see no reason for Jclemens to recuse because of his statement, as it was an appropriate and, in my opinion, insightful point to make. Silverseren^C 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"... Jclemens' meaning was quite clear and it was only faltered by mis-wording." - Therein lies the problem. In a typewritten environ, wording has the heaviest affect on meaning. As a person with *cough* a tendency *cough* to be [um] "verbose" myself, I can say that I have been misunderstood, even when the wording was I thought exceedingly clear. Individual words can be perjorative in a sentence, changing the whole seeming meaning of the sentence, even if we did not intend that, or even realise that they could be interpreted in such a way. - jc37 18:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't support that kind of cult-like thinking. The community means anyone who actively contributes to the project with the sole exception of people who have been indefinitely banned from the community, in my opinion, and even those people can become members of the community again. Malleus is a member of the community and has been since he began editing here, period.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Malleus is a member of the community and has been since he began editing here, period." - I agree. But that's a question of interpreting policy. And (though you may disagree) it's a fine (delicate) point. (For example, simply making the statement alone wouldn't be a blocking offence.) If Jclemens has an interpretation you disagree with, you have ways to deal with that. One is to try to civilly discuss them with him. And (in this case) if due to his interpretation you do not trust him to be an arb, vote to decline him the priviledge in the future. - jc37 18:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally (and it truly is incidental at this point I think), I personally think a person becomes a Wikipedian from their first contribution to the project. period, full stop. (Note: I didn't say first edit.) I think they cease being [currently] a Wikipedian when they cease [positively] contributing to the project, for whatever reason.

And personally, I really dislike placing a Wikipedian's contributions on a balance and weighing positives and negatives, though it may sometimes need to be done. - jc37 19:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

At the point they leave, they become an ex-Wikipedian. We don't do unpersons here. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that term BK. Though it too is rather subjective. (I was thinking about this more.) Does inactivity make one an "ex-Wikipedian"/"no longer a Wikipedian"? Does banning? I dunno. - jc37 20:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That aside, I vehemently disagree with the idea that a person stops being a person merely because anyone else may suggest so. And further I don't care what website a person contributes to, or how much or little they do, or even the subjective value of those contributions - that all has ZERO to do with whether they are to be considered a person.

Being a Wikipedian has nothing to do with whether a person is a person. If Wikipedia policies ever suggested that, I would be gone and never look back. Let's get Godwin's law out of the way, and say that talking about nonpersons sounds like equating with the nazis, or pre-civil war slavery etc. And I think it's incredibly insulting to say the least, to suggest that whether one of us can edit some website is comparable to past plight of "nonpersons". - jc37 20:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of basic human decency. Malleus obviously cares about the work that goes into this place or else he wouldn't be here and I don't think anyone seriously questions that. Personally, I say his occasional incivility is because he cares about that work. Telling Malleus that he is not a member of the community is akin to telling him that he doesn't care about something on which he has spent a great deal of valuable time. Time is life. Putting time into something is essentially putting a bit of your life into something. Many a horrible thing has been said about me in life, but the one thing that tends to hurt the most is when someone suggests that I don't care.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagee. However, that doesn't make it any less your and my interpretation of policy. - jc37 20:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Jclemens should immediately resign from all positions of trust and accept the fact that his comment is easily the worst insult many of us have read since probably the first infobox war. What he did is a bit like aborting a fetus and then telling it: "You have never been a member of the human race." -- That's exactly how it comes across. It's actually mindboggling that Jclemens is not already permabanned. --87.78.5.129 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We have now reached the hair's breadth from accusations of Hitler. Can we close this farce now? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nod, the language being used would seem to be rather inappropriate. ("flowery language", though typically the accurate term, seems vastly inadequate atm.) At the end of the day, this is merely a website. Let's please step back and have a little perspective here. - jc37 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)