This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is my draft attempt at reducing core policies to simple language by furnishing the reasons for them. Feel free to tear it apart. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I just now responded to something you wrote on my talk page by asking you a question. Since the discussion is really long and it was many hours ago when you wrote, I wanted to leave you a note here to make sure you see it, because I'm very curious to learn your answer.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
As one of the more active participants of WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force, would you like to comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security#WikiProject restructuring? Cheers, — Ruud 18:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Um -- I do not expect any answer, but I find it hard to fathom the motions being proposed on the "Unblock case discussion" page. I still rather think my proposal was elegant there, and wish it were directly proposed as being 1. short 2. simple 3. non-judgmental in a fairly moot case. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Jclemens, one way I look at it is...what is a bigger problem, an editor who is incivil in the midst of argy-bargy on a heated topic...or one who misuses sources or copyvios or engages in some other behaviour that other editors have to spend an extended period of time reviewing and cleaning up - some of the copyvio reviews are mindboggling in their scope. Personally, I have much less of a problem with an editor letting fly a few Anglo-Saxon expletives at me, than one who in a pseudo-polite manner insinuates that I have engaged in some negative behaviour that I am innocent of. Obviously if a situation is tense and someone gratuitously escalates it, that is a major pain in the neck too, and I do think that writing the four letters is not as immediate and hence more easily avoided than verbalising them. Anyway, back to reviewing abortion...or writing something to clear my head first... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I was wondering if you had just missed my repeated, patient requests for your comments and thoughts about how you believe the climate change sanctions should be lifted. Apparently not. After three weeks and three polite follow-up inquiries ( [2], [3], [4]) you went to the trouble of shortening the archive time on your talk page – while in the process of promptly and courteously replying to the other outstanding requests ( [5]) – just so you could finally quickly shuffle my request off into your archives. I'm just really, really disappointed that you couldn't even be bothered to tell me openly that you couldn't be bothered to answer my question. There's a basic standard of communicativeness that the community expects of Arbitrators, even if you're faced with editors who might disagree with you. I get that you're busy and that you have multiple demands on your time, but a short message telling me either that my interpretation of your reasoning was correct, or that you might handle things differently in future motions, or that you just don't want to share your reasoning with me because you don't like me – anything at all – would have been better than the brush-off you just gave. I mean really—you couldn't even bring yourself to manually archive my thread; you had to set the bot to do your dirty work? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
|
I have given this article a review and left comments at Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1. Thank you for you contributions. My main concern is the references and since it has been in the queue for so long I thought I would give you a chance to find some more reliable replacements. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am not a tech person at all, and find all of the deletions extremely confusing, so I'm hoping you can hand-hold me through an understanding - and help restore the pages.
1. The movie "Six Characters in Search of America" - is a REAL movie, on IMDB, and had screenings, and cast members are even semi-famous people. So the deletion of the page seems strange.
2. The deletion of the page for Rachel Wolf seems similarly strange, as she has a certain level of fame as well, as a singer, writer, producer and creator of an animal-related cause called "Patrick's Law." The Facebook page had 50,000 followers in one month and the website is approaching 100,000 views.
3. The deletion of the page for Stewart Wade (Rachel Wolf's collaborator on a few projects). Stewart has directed several indie films, both of which have been extensively reviewed, and one of them was even the source of a major controversy with Roger Ebert.
Therefore, all three pages should not have been deleted... and in fact, all need updating now as well. Please tell us how to navigate the maze of Wikipedia. Thank you.
Dear Jclemens, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the elections and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words. Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.
In order for your candidacy to be valid, your nomination statement must also include a declaration of any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee), and must express your willingness and ability to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic data policy.
You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! -- DQ (t) (e) 05:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Election 2011 candidate:
Jclemens
|
Can you please check the information on your row in the table on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Guide? Feel free to correct any mistakes or fill in any missing information. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Jclemens, With reference to the complaint I left some time ago I would like to offer apology for the tone and manner of it, and for showing impatience with the proceeding. I now see that ARBCOM cases can be somewhat complicated. Apart from submitting evidence I have stayed away from the proceedings mostly, and saw yesterday it is nearing conclusion. I won't try to defend my own behaviour on the article in question at those times when it was remiss. Once again I apologise for my lack of patience and the manner in which I raised the issue with you. Regards, DMSBel ( talk) 23:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
My laptop is in the shop, so it may be a day or two before I can address issues. I can still read email and review Wikipedia, but editing Wikipedia from a mobile device is quite tedious. I will amend this notice once I get it back. Jclemens-public ( talk) 23:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, there is currently a dispute at National Organization for Marriage as to whether the Photo manipulation section should stay or go. There is no consensus after an RfC. Does WP:BURDEN apply when there is no consensus? Does the content stay or go? Wikipedia:Consensus#When there is no consensus does not address this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
This user is currently blocked for edit warring, but IP addresses 202.156.11.12, 202.156.11.11, and 218.186.18.232 have been engaging in the same edit warring behavior on Magneto (comics). As a checkuser, can you see if these are related? Thanks. 129.33.19.254 ( talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
From what I understand from an email the health issues with Orangemarlin had been discussed privately amongst arbitrators already by early October. Mathsci ( talk) 15:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You restored the article. Shoudn't you restore the talk page too? Cheers, — Racconish Tk 06:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The Citation Barnstar | |
Thanks for fixing the citations on the root cellar article after I restored the article. A user with the IP address 205.213.111.50 made numerous inappropriate changes to that article. Is their a process to have them banned from future edits? Gavinski16 ( talk) 18:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added some new questions [6] to your candidate page, and I think it's in your best interest to address them before voting starts. Cheers, Skinwalker ( talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens.
The deletion log for Geospatial topology says: "21:43, January 19, 2010 Jclemens (talk · contribs) deleted "Geospatial topology" (Expired PROD, concern was: No meaningful content to say what "Geospatial topology" is and to distinguish it from "topology". Mostly a set of disconnected non-sentences. No attempt to clean-up for substantial period.)"
I've now started the current page from scratch and it hopefully addresses the content issues. However this is the first time I've re-created a deleted article so I thought I'd better check with you that I've followed the correct protocol. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 11:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Jclemens,
As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. -- Tznkai ( talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
There's an ANI thread which may concern you here (you're involved in the histories of both the pages linked directly, including declining the PROD of at least one blatant copyvio). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You're the drafting arbitrator. The evidence page says:
Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely...Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs....Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits.
Why did you use evidence in violation of this rule to characterize me as a POV-pusher who manipulates sources? Why did you decline to give me permission to exceed this evidence limit in my own defense? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(Undent)Please fully protect my home page and talk page. Thx. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven’t participated in it very much, but I’ve been closely following the discussion about whether it’s appropriate to have a finding of fact about OrangeMarlin despite his absence, and I definitely support the position you’re taking about this. However, I’m also concerned about this hurting your chances at re-election, and I’m especially worried about the ramifications of that if it does. In order for ArbCom to be effective, arbitrators have to be able to stand up for what they think is right for the community even when it involves opposing a popular editor or editors. If arbitrators can’t do that without it coming at the expense of their opportunity to be re-elected, then ArbCom is going to become subject to the same problem that Sandstein mentioned in his candidacy last year, where popular and experienced editors can get away with a lot more than new editors can, because of everyone being reluctant to sanction them. I also agree with what you said about how this problem contributes to the creation of a toxic editing environment and the decline in participation.
According to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, Wikipedia has around 300,000 people who edit at least once a month, while only 854 people voted in the ArbCom election last year. That means the arbitrators are chosen by around 0.3% of the community, and in general it’s the 0.3% of editors who are most active and experienced. I worry a lot about arbitrators being held accountable only to the tiny portion of the community who elects them, who generally aren’t the editors in greatest need of protection. Is this a concern that you share at all? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This article contains a few sentences about abortion but it is not in any sort of abortion category. Does it fall under the umbrella of semi-protection for 3 years?--v/r - T P 13:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, when and where does the discussion on pro-life/pro-choice article titles start? Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jmclemns, I'd like to make a fresh start on Wikipedia if possible, though I may take a short break from the site to get back in touch with some real world matters, and take stock. If that is permissible and Arbcom have no issue with it, then could I close my present account/ username, and set up a new one?. DMSBel ( talk) 11:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest restoring the page for my colleague Gillian Howie (philosopher) since she has now been promoted to the rank of professor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljameshill ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much! No hurry! Danieljameshill ( talk) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Please request possible.
Is it possible to develop an article Singer of the High School Musical, Corbin Bleu and become a good article See the article Arabic Wikipedia good article, can you? .
Look at this version will help you to become a good article. I do not see any adjustment well in this article, can you make a good article as an article Biographies.
Success in your life. Goodbye. -- 2.91.153.114 ( talk) 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well my friend, but can you fix this article, delete the non-reliable sources. And to delete the template at the top of the article. Thank you my friend. Such as this ( version). Cheers. -- 2.91.153.114 ( talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I appreciate the facilitating of the Abortion Arbcom, by Coren and yourself. While I'd have liked to have been given leave to appeal the topic ban imposed, I appreciate the case is closed now. I have asked Coren for clarification of its scope.
The proceeding however frequently mimicked a litigation (but without many of the checks) rather than arbitration sadly, with one or two participants acting more than a little bit like prosecutors. In fact in the aftermath its taken me to clarify in my own mind again that there is a sharp distinction between the two in several important respects. Whilst I in no way consider either Coren or yourself lacking in ability to handle complex cases, MastCell took part in fairly litigatory manner, and perhaps it needs explained to him what the difference between litigation and arbitration is. DMSBel (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Going along with the heading of this, I did not agree with the results of the case but you did a good job, Jclemens. Thanks. NYyankees51 ( talk) 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
As to the broader topic of this thread, I don't think the underlying assumptions are correct. Looking at the actual evidence page, it would appear that 12 editors presented substantial amounts of evidence: NYyankees51, Eraserhead, Vsevolod Krolikov, Anythingyouwant, HuskyHuskie, MastCell, NuclearWarfare, KillerChihuahua, DMSBel, CMLITC, ArtifexMayhem, and RoyBoy. It's not clear to me that any particular "side" is overrepresented on the evidence page - perhaps you could elaborate on your perspective to the contrary? On the workshop/workshop talk pages, Anythingyouwant (generally viewed as a "pro-life" editor) was the heaviest editor by almost a 2:1 margin.
As to defending oneself, it would seem that most of the sanctioned editors did in fact avail themselves of that opportunity. Anythingyouwant defended himself aggressively and at great length. NYyankees51 defended himself on the evidence page and responded to specific concerns here. Haymaker defended himself in a lengthy thread here. As for DMSBel, I doubt that anything said in his defense would have altered the outcome; the fact that he was blocked (again) for edit-warring on abortion during the voting phase of the case probably said it all, in a deeds-louder-than-words sense. In any case, I don't see that the sanctioned editors failed to offer a defense, perhaps with the exceptions of Michael C. Price and Gandydancer.
Finally, it's interesting to see different perspectives on this case's outcome. From my point of view, it looks like a number of editors were editing in service of their personal agendas at the expense of the encyclopedia, and were sanctioned as a result. To others, apparently, it looks like the "pro-choice" side won a victory over the "pro-life" side on the basis of better tactical organization. To be honest, I think the latter view - on prominent display in this thread - speaks clearly to an ongoing conception of Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, which is unfortunate. MastCell Talk 22:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Kenatipo, I don't find your reasoning for not taking MastCell up on his offer too compelling. I think you're undermining your position by postulating inequities, but failing to work to find and document them. If I missed something, if there was a miscarriage of justice by way of inappropriatley unbalanced sanctions, I really want to know that. At the same time, I'm far from the best person to review my own work--I've reviewed so much I get crosseyed going near the topic. If you won't do it, do you think you could recruit someone else to do so? Jclemens-public ( talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there - I only got a notification in September that a proposal had been made. I never knew that this had moved onto the evidence and later proposed decision sections until I looked one day for the first time and saw that I was going to be sanctioned. If I had been made aware of how far this would have progressed I would have been active in the evidence section not only sharing diffs and commenting on other users actions but also in working to explain mine. I generally agree with Kenatipo, this feels more like justice half done than justice miscarried. - Haymaker ( talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I have reviewed A Golden Crown, and placed it on hold. You can see my comments at the review page. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 10:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven’t been paying close attention to this because I’m involved in a dispute on another article, but I’ve just noticed that during the week since the abortion arbitration case closed, OrangeMarlin seems to already be returning to his old ways. He’s making 50+ edits per day, so inability to participate due to illness clearly is no longer an issue. And he’s also returning to the same uncivil behavior that was discussed during the case, although since he’s no longer editing abortion articles, it’s now happening elsewhere.
Here are some of his comments directed at other editors during the time since the case closed: [10] [11] [12]
And here are some of his comments about what he thinks of you, based on your having argued in favor of him being topic banned. [13] [14] [15] [16] The last comment is directed at both you and me, with the phrase “go fuck yourself” four times in one paragraph.
When ArbCom ruled that OrangeMarlin needed to contact them upon his return to editing and before he resumed participating in abortion articles, I’m assuming that what they intended wasn’t that he would just continue the same behavior elsewhere. Do you have an opinion about how this ought to be handled at this stage? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Your argument to revert to "Afd" was a non-argument, since "deletion" and "discussion" are both at "d". But since I was reverted again, , and respecting WP:BRD, I opened a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Bold.2C_revert.2C_discuss. Debresser ( talk) 13:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay lets finish this. I went through the whole article again and instead of suggesting changes just made them. Hope you don't mind, revert/change any you don't agree with. The cast in the guest list still confuses me a bit. Apart from that I am happy with it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
What exactly does numerical representation [17] have to do with the issue? AfD's and DRV's aren't supposed to be pollings. But instead an argumentation based on policy, with a derived closure based upon the weight of the arguments. That was the trouble with the AfD closure - and it is the trouble with the DRV closure - that this is not happening. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
Thanks Jclemens for helping to promote Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
:***Editors are responsible for their own editing, essentially indefinitely, but especially in a proximate ArbCom case. Whether they're inebriated, emotionally disturbed, mentally incompetent, suffering physical pain, facing their own mortality... none of these external circumstances ... absolve an editor from the responsibility to edit in an appropriate manner, which includes collegiality.
I wasn't paying attention to any of the event from November; just the last 3 days so I don't have a real solid opinion on that period. WP:civil needs this added. Alatari ( talk) 09:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
So here is a succinct form of it that could be added to the WP:civil:
I'm of the opinion that Inebriation is possible number one external factor for adult editors being uncivil followed by overly tired and then narcissistic personality and borderline personality. A great deal of the other problems are from being under 18 and lacking emotional maturity. Alatari ( talk) 09:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, how many editors are from those countries? My great grandmother was Austrian and she was trouble. ;) Alatari ( talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was disappointed when you didn't chime in here. I'd love to hear your thoughts! causa sui ( talk) 04:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jclemens. How long do we have to wait for the scrutineers to certify the ArbCom election? I voted in support of your re-election for your strong stand in favor of CIVILITY and for the common sense in your comments. It is truly discouraging to see a strong current flowing against you. Hope you make it, man! -- Kenatipo speak! 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a reply to your comments on Orangemarlins talk page. As far as I know/recall we have not previously crossed paths; I first became aware of the current situation when the recent AN/I thread was started. Personally, I am quite relieved at the action Risker took in indeffing OM et. al.
Nothing herein is intended to excuse Orangemarlin's behavior. In my opinion, he should have been indeffed and his "parting shot" comments suppressed when he announced his departure last July. That did not happen; it is was it is.
I understand you have been subjected to repeated loathsome personal attacks by Orangemarlin. You did not deserve this. At this point it is cliche that Wikipedia is dysfunctional in maintaining its civility pillar: the problem is everyone agrees we should be civil but no one agrees what that means.
I understand and empathize with your reasoning that Wikipedia standards should remain constant regardless of real life factors affecting editors. However, Wikipedia is a social environment and, after a certain amount of time a perceptive observer of the human condition should conclude The most illogical thing a person can do is expect people to behave logically. The fact is that people have a tendency "to feel sorry for" a person under going significant tribulations. I thought the ArbCom remedy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Orangemarlin_instructed was a Solomon like response.
Captain Occam's notification to ArbCom [18] was all that was necessary and prudent (although his interpretation that what uninvolved editors would consider "playful banter" was "ominous" was off). SirFozzie promptly replied that matter was being handled. Occam's next posting [ [19]], specifically This might sound overly cynical of me, but it seems like a strange coincidence that after being absent from Wikipedia for four months, OrangeMarlin returned within a few hours after the decision to not sanction him due to his absence received enough support to pass was a pseudo-carefully worded vile personal attack. The proper response at the point should have been a stern rebuke. Your reply is easily perceived as passively endorsing this attack.
Hard work, solid reasoning skills, understanding of policy and believe in the work of the encyclopedia are necessary conditions for an effective ArbCom or senior administrator and all the evidence I've seen thus far indicates you have demonstrated these. While necessary, there are not sufficient; a certain cultural sensitivity is also required, and currently that appears to be lacking. Gerardw ( talk) 17:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You have asked for specific feedback on my opinion of how you could have handled the events surrounding Orangemarlin more optimally. I have reviewed the Abortion arbitration case and the current text on Orangemarlin's talk page but make no claim to have fully reviewed all past interactions.
I have found this difficult due to the extraordinary circumstances of an editor whose behavior has far exceeded the standards of Wikipedia civility suffering a tragic near death experience as discussion of their actions transpired, and I do not envy the difficulties of arbitrating such a case. After this additional review, my overall impression is as I first posted; it is not so much a matter of content as tone. Additionally, I have relunctanctly reached the conclusions that there is likely no possible wording you could have to used to avoid offending some editors who might consider your viewpoint heartless; it would be counterproductive to the effective operation of Wikipedia if we become so politicially correct we fail to speak forthrightly. While due diligience with respect to precision of phrasing is appropriate, there is a point we have to realize Rick Nelson's Garden party anthem you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself
That said, I have identified specific phrasing which could be problematic, along with alternative suggestions. In isolation, I would consider these nits and would not raise them with any editor who had not specifically invited a critical analysis; they are intended as implicit suggestions for future actions as an editor/administrator/arbitraitor in a more positive way rather than finding of fault for past actions. I would consider it unfortunate if other editors observing this dialog saw this as an opportunity to pile on and rehash old grievances.
You wrote:
It saddens me that so much of the committee is unwilling to call egregious behavior... egregious. Orangemarlin was made aware of the case, and declined to participate. Off-wiki reality does not excuse yet another clearly "guilty" (inasmuch as this is not a real judicial proceeding, yet evidence is presented and fault is being assessed) party escaping a just and appropriate reward for their behavior. Likewise, I am aware of past ArbCom conflicts with Orangemarlin, but that was substantially before my time and no factor, for good or ill, in my assessment of Orangemarlin's behavior. If we can't sanction Orangemarlin--no, wait, if we can't even come to the agreement that his behavior was entirely inappropriate and inexcusable--then we really have no moral authority to sanction any other party in these disputes.
I disagree with much of the committee deferring finding on fact due to an editors inability to participate as it is unfair to the other parties in these disputes. While understanding the reasoning for deferral in this particular case, it seems a dangerous precedent it which parties can opt out of arbitration proceedings by not participating. Likewise, I am aware of past ArbCom conflicts with Orangemarlin, but that was substantially before my time and no factor in my assessment of Orangemarlin's behavior.
1.First choice. Well, first choice of presented options. I have decided not to put forward an outright ban because it is apparent there is no support for it, which is a shame.
would have been better without the "which is a shame."
Or should we just drop the pretense, and automagically give everyone who says they have real-world medical problems a "get out of ArbCom free" pass? That seems to be the direction we're heading, and I don't see any collective will within the committee to change it.
As I indicated in my initial post, this by far the most troublesome comment. In the context it which it was raised -- an editor's veiled implication that Orangemarlin was faking or exaggerating their real life condition, a firm statement that assume good faith is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia and reiterating that the committee was aware of Orangemarlin's return and that Elen had contacted them would have been vastly preferrable. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the thread in question, Occam raised his concern, which was appropriately answered by SirFozzie. Occam then repeated his concern, this time insinuating that Orangemarlin was manipulating his illness to affect the outcome of the ArbCom case. That was an incredibly uncivil accusation. Frankly, if I had been through a near-death experience, I probably wouldn't care if someone called me a sociopathic fucktard, but I would care, deeply, if they insinuated that I was somehow faking aspects of my illness. It should be obvious to any reasonably empathetic person that Occam's comment was highly offensive.
At that point, there were several options: calling out Occam's incivility, ignoring it, or amplifying on his insinuations. I wouldn't have faulted you for ignoring his comment - certainly I get a bit tired of people claiming that it's my personal responsibility to call out every instance of incivility, and I think the best course is usually to ignore uncivil comments rather than draw attention to them (after all, they're usually a form of attention-seeking behavior). I was disappointed to see you take the third tack. Intentionally or not (and it appears it was unintentional), your follow-on comment had the effect of amplifying Occam's insinuation. It's one thing for Occam, an editor with what could charitably be called a checkered past, to make such a comment, but another for it to apparently gain traction and support from the drafting Arb on the case.
So I think a lot of it isn't so much what you said as the timing, manner, and context in which you said it. But that's just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 19:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on another term to ArbCom. Or maybe I should say, sorry you have deal with all the troubles of Wikipedia again. Either way, I'm happy for your success. BTW, thanks for the WP:NIME essay. I do feel it reflects a segment of our population here at Wikipedia. Thanks for your dedicated support of our project. Best regards. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, forgive me if this is a dumb question, but are abortion articles still subject to 1RR after the case, or are they just under discretionary sanctions? Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 21:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Topic overrun by unhelpful input
|
---|
Why are you, an administrator, nominating an article such as this for GA status? Not to be rude but the article is quite bad. This just doesn't make any sense to me... Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Why are you re-nominating Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) without making any of the fixes indicated in the recent review and in the tags in the article? You do realize that it will be failed in its current state, right? As TheLeftorium indicated above, this is going to be a waste of some reviewer's time. Articles should come to GAN needing only a few fixes, not a complete overhaul. As an administrator, you really should know better. Ruby 2010/ 2013 20:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I also want to note that this is disruptive behavoir and kick in the nuts to all who actually worked on articles before nominating. Especially renominating an article which was failed without even fixing the issues. Why are you wasting reviewers time? You take valuable time away from people who actually worked on something. -- Maitch ( talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Humorous images, messing with the below thread.
|
---|
Hi JClemens, is it too late for me to comment here? [22] I've had a hellish week at work and am just getting around to my emails and Wikipedia notifications. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
I'm not a very active contributer to wikipedia (have only made a few anonymous spelling corrections etc.) So my reasoning may be very off in this case. Please let me know in that case!
I recently came across a character called Nassim Haramein. On youtube, he has some very new-agey ideas that he mixes with physical theories. Classic pseudo-science-stuff. In this case, however I got intriuged, because the problems he formulates are interesting. I wanted to look around for some critics, wich is alway available for controversial ideas. Naturally, I went to wikipedia, were I found out that you had deleted his page in 2009.
The reason was that he was not noteworthy if I understand thins correctly. However, most of the arguments are about weather his Ideas are plausable or not.
Maybe this has changed since 2009 or maybe it doesn't matter, however, I get around 550 000 hits on google on his name and I he has a bunch of videos on youtube , some with views in the 100 000:s. He also seems to do a lot of lectures. He also won this peer-reviewed award(however I have no idea if it is to be concidered valid) http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/1303.jsp
Also his latest paper has been peer reiviewd and published at American Institute of Physics, according to his own blog atleast: http://theresonanceproject.org/the-schwarzschild-proton-paper-at-the-american-institute-of-physics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoffernolgren ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
To me this seems like enough to concider him a public figure. At least so it's possible to present critisism to his ideas by people who get exposed to them.
Have great day, I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this matter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoffernolgren ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
On 1 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Fudge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that American theologian Edward Fudge is the subject of an upcoming film, Hell and Mr. Fudge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Fudge.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I hope I'm doing the talk thing right. I like to initiate a page for the Iranian Artist Mr. Alireza Sadaghdar, and there is already a deleted page. The page I would like to make is a biography of the artist. If it is the same content as the deleted page, will you please bring the page back so that I can edit it and add new content? Thanks. Mehdisad ( talk) 07:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You blocked for that? Boy, I wish you'd been around when people were adding claims about George Soros cited to sources that called him a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" and paragraphs about politicians cited to press releases from organizations that campaign against them. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of confusion around whether time to post evidence could be extended and whether subpages are permissible for extensive evidence. Some editors me included posted evidence close or slightly after the deadline making it impossible for others to rebut the evidence. In my case I decided to post late in the day and realize I didn't give much time for Doc James to deal with the evidence against him. A definitive statement from the drafting arbs on whether the deadline for posting evidence has been extended and whether evidence can be linked to on subpages might settle the environment on that arbitration which is ever so slightly starting to look like at three ring circus. I can't speak for anyone else but I'd be happy to give editors extra time to reply to my evidence. ( olive ( talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC))
Hi. On November 28, as Anythingyouwant was leaving in a huff, he asked you to fully protect his user and talk pages. You said you'd rather have an uninvolved admin do this than do it yourself. I obliged on December 15, so these pages are now indefinitely fully protected. I wanted to check with you to see if you still feel this protection should be kept up. I know WP:UPROT says that "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected due to retirement is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page" — but I figure you had your reasons in this case. — Rich wales 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:
This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.
I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Note this review will be claimed as part of the 2012 WikiCup. Review page is at Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA2. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
When looking at the original, I could understand the nomination... specially as coverage under its Serbian title of Jelenin svet was so limited. I greatly appreciate it when a nominator reverses himself upon article improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Even though I don't agree with all of them I thought it was really good that you made so many comments on the Muhammad workshop. Good job. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Joss Whedon has revealed several times that the reason Alan Tudyk's character was killed in Serenity was because he couldn't commit to sequels. Same for Ron Glass. This actually threatened the deal going through, so the only solution was to kill off those characters, and so prove to Universal that sequels could be locked before production on the first film began. (Joss explains this here: [ Joss Whedon Experience 2010]) That doesn't mean Tudyk and Glass wouldn't have reprised their roles, it just means that if Universal didn't want to negotiate a deal with them, the sequels could still go ahead. In Whedon's original "Kitchen Sink" 190 page script, it's the exact same story, but everyone survives at the end. Don't get too miffed with the actors, though, it was Fox that put everyone in this position. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The article The Wolf and the Lion you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Wolf and the Lion for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
As an update, I've left you some homework for The Wolf and the Lion...not a huge amount of work...check it out anyway. I was going to do Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) as well, but it only has 3 footnotes. That needs alot more work, both in referencing and embellishing some bits - can we find some more commentary from GRRM or directors, actors, reviewers about the episode? It'd really help. I am mentioning this as I think it might take alot of work and be good to do it before someone starts a seven day timer ticking. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: If you're trawling through references, would it help to have another article reviewed at the same time, or would you prefer to focus on one at a time? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, how should I deal with the IP user who is harassing me on my talk page? [23] Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Already protected for something like a day. We'll see if longer protection is needed tomorrow night. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
J, I'd appreciate a response to this post. I'm sure you just missed it in the crush, but I've had too many experiences in this dispute with other editors sidestepping rational arguments that they dislike. It's frustrating to try to have a discussion where editors ignore every reasonable thing I say and harp endlessly on every perceived slight they can dig out of diffs, and it would be nice to change that dynamic. -- Ludwigs2 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the image of Jesse Dirkhising. I never understood why it was deleted in the first place. Caden cool 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've started the review for The Pointy End. I haven't taken a thorough look at the article yet, but I left some preliminary comments on the review page. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I see you've voted both for and against Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Proposed_decision#Betacommand_limited_to_BAG_approved_tasks, although it's true that your support was only a "distant choice". ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 14:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
As you may've noticed, I've just started an amendment thread about Mathsci's behavior toward and about me. However, AGK has raised concerns about whether an amendment thread was the best way to handle the issue. As I said to AGK in the amendment thread, I don't think going to AE is a good idea. In retrospect I'm unsure if I should've come to you about this initially, since you warned Mathsci about this specific issue pretty recently ( [24]). I'm unsure of where's the best place to deal with this, so I was wondering if you had any idea of what should happen if he were to do what you warned him about again (which he did). Any help or advice would be appreciated. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 04:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion here that you might want to look at.
As per your suggestion I raised the issue with Roger Davies, but his response did not address the issue. I'm not sure I understand the reason for Arbcom's lack of response in the amendment thread, but it means admins at AE are trying to take matters into their own hands. And as you can see from the discussion in EdJohnson's user talk, this includes the suggestion that in the future AE will make decisions based on off-wiki information about editors. You said here that Arbcom has decided this information shouldn't be discussed in public, so this is the first time I've seen an admin suggest that AE go against what Arbcom has decided.
I can't try to resolve this at AE. I've already seen in the amendment thread that the group of editors who opposed me on R&I more than a year ago are using this opportunity to bring up off-wiki information about me in public. Anything I post related to this issue at a noticeboard will likely get a similar response, and now I see that I can't count on admins caring whether my privacy is respected.
I understand that Arbcom is busy, but there are some issues that can't be ignored forever. At this point, it looks like Arbcom's lack of response for the past week may result in a decision that will make outing unavoidable in certain future AE requests. I know from your comment above that this isn't something Arbcom would agree with, so I'm asking that Arbcom please not continue to ignore this issue. At this point, even a response from an arbitrator who's unfamiliar with the R&I case would be a lot better than the consequences of no response. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 05:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be easier for your fellow Arbs to accept as principle (or even FoF) that applying unusual/novel standards only to a subset of images (which also happen to be the ones controversial for certain belief-structure reasons) rather than all images in the article is the most troublesome issue with respect to "gaming the system". I hope I've managed to illustrate that a bit in my [late] /Evidence. Unlike what you proposed at principle 10, such a principle [or FoF] does not require presupposition about the motives of editors engaging in argumentation distinctly different in sourcing/educational standards for various images. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 04:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering that POLA was pretty firmly rejected by the community in regards to how the Foundation described it, I think it's rather inappropriate to be using it in any incarnation in an active Arbcom case. You can't advise editors to follow a principle that the community has rejected. Silver seren C 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps "Once an outside pressure group has publicly requested that Wikipedia content be changed, future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the results desired by the outside pressure group." should become "Once an argument for removing material has been rejected on policy grounds (censorship, for example), future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the same results."
The focus on "outside pressure group" seems to be the source of the resistance, and I don't think it was really your point.— Kww( talk) 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I know it's still early in the ani discussion, but I'm seeing some range of "may be a bit much" in regards to the DreamFocus block. I note that he has now posted an unblock request, and I think several admins. may consider it a possibility. I didn't want to just "approve" it without coming and talking to you first though. What are your thoughts? — Ched : ? 13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Has there ever been a case at ArbCom regarding the deletionist/inclusionist debate? I am thinking there needs to be some effort at resolving the question of how the deletion process operates. Whether that would mean ArbCom or some other process is something I would also like to know. Is there a better way of raising ideas for decisively improving the process?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I think part of the problem is that most people who use the terms (and an even larger percentage of those who use them in a derogatory fashion) have either not read, or not understood, m:Inclusionism or m:Deletionism. pablo 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that the Committee has avoided framing a case as us v. them on purpose, but the cases I can think of that strongly implicate the debate are: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. MBisanz talk 19:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I just spotted the now-closed ANI thread on your block of Dream Focus for what you characterize as "battleground behavior" and what I would consider an unwarned bad block on an editor exercising free speech. I just wanted to let you know that I disagree with your block and see it as a rogue action, no matter how the flash "consensus" of The Usual Suspects at ANI describes it. Carrite ( talk) 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, well. The {{ rescue}} template has been deleted. One could argue that the close was premature, since there was an associated RfC also encompassing the TfD, but that's just a technicality. Reading the debate, there's clearly a large group of people who see the ARS as nothing more than a hyper-inclusionist voting bloc. That's unfortunate, but not as inaccurate as I would like it to be.
As such, while the ARS could probably continue in some way, shape, or form, I think it's an opportune time to supplant it with something that does the work, without the drama. Long-time readers of this talk page will note that this isn't the first time I've postulated something along these lines, but this time, it's probably the right time to actually do something about it.
To that end, I will be kicking off the Content Rehabilitation Project. The fundamental premise of the project is that deleted content represents something into which some editor invested time and effort, and is a source of topics and article "parts" that can, with appropriate effort, be made acceptable for the encyclopedia. In brief, it will have no membership lists, not take any part in inclusion guideline discussion, reward participants for actually improving articles, work on problematic content that needs help: whether older content that needs to be rewritten/merged/whatever, deleted content that needs to be brought up to current Wikipedia standards before mainspace, or the traditional domain of the ARS, content facing a current AfD that may be salvageable during the duration of that discussion. Want to help out? Let me know here. Jclemens ( talk) 09:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you please restore the page Toxik Ephex, or at least send me a copy so I can recreate it with perhaps some more credible sources. Care was taken to get the page up to wikipedia standards and many other pages now point to this deleted page as a reference, that is validility enough in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.230.225.6 ( talk) 11:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, near the bottom of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol, someone's asking about the page title for this oversight action; whether or not you believe the title appropriate to mention at the SPI, it might help if you commented there. Nyttend ( talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Noetica added me, along with ten other editors to a complaint that had been brought by admin SarekofVulcan ( ∆ edit, here). That just seem so wrong. Greg L ( talk) 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 10:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
POLA failed - I have made comments on the talk page thereof where I hope to simplify the wording of what I hope is what ArbCom views as the gist. Collect ( talk) 12:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens,
I just listed an article for deletion that you have previously nominated but later withdrew. This was in 2008 and I don't think that since then there has been enough to establish notability. You can join the discussion here. Thanks. Noformation Talk 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=475016091&oldid=474956190 :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You blocked Juice Leskinen as a sock, but I couldn't find an investigation. Is it one of those secret ones, or based purely on behaviour? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 21:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind redirecting that to Mortal Engines Quartet in lieu of deletion, per WP:ATD? I know no one brought up that possibility in the AfD, yet it remains the best policy-compliant outcome... Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, just pointing out that I seem not to be the only person who has problems with User:Epeefleche's behaviour (including a clear attempt to influence an AfD discussion by page blanking and whitewashing my criticism from his talk page). He has already been banned not once, not twice but three times for offences that seem to range from sockpuppetry to disruption and questionable methods in an AfD. -- hydrox ( talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Does WP:WEaPOn run afoul of WP:NPA in any way? Noting its odd preoccupation with User:Joedesantis and the material implying that his acts are improper to say the least? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross purposes with regard to "serious". It doesn't mean that we only cover "serious" topics. I'm fine with articles on Game of Thrones, or Pokemon, or Lost characters. Those subjects can all be treated seriously. I mean that we need to take seriously the idea of summarizing and conveying knowledge—a goal which seems obvious and central but typically gets buried in wikilawyering over content policies and civility.
Our content policies are usually interpreted to mean that "it was published in print, so it needs to go in our article", or "we need to present every crazy idea credulously and let the reader decide which is correct". Both of those ideas are antithetical to the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. But they're the dominant interpretations of WP:V and WP:NPOV, respectively, at both the community and often the ArbCom level. MastCell Talk 18:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
At any rate, back to seriousness. Given its baggage, I'd rather say that we try to be accurate, comprehensive, and exercise due care in our coverage. I think that hits all the important bits of "serious", without implying that Pokemon can't be covered. :-) Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jclemens,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
talkback|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters}}
-
Michaelzeng7 (
talk -
contribs) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"We" quote things with the variant spelling used in the source, "period"
The "we" was exceptionally patronising. The "period" was not quite so patronising, but still very patronising none the less. You see the usage of "we" implies an 'Us v. them' mentality which designates anyone who isn'yt complaint with YOUR viewpoint 'one of them'. I suppose Wikipedia can be forgiven for not having a proper vetting process for those promoted to the higher level as it's a relatively new entity and it's political structure has not yet matured. Consider the polar opposites of 'Advanced C programming' and 'Retarded Z personality'. Brian W. Kernighan would be disappointed really. Although I suspect Dennis Ritchie, from my relatively few meetings with him would not have cared much as long as your voids were placed correctly. EOF Vexorg ( talk) 07:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
talkback|Talk:History of South Asia|Requested move}}
An RM based on opinions expressed in the AfD. Hope you can chime in, as you did in the AfD!
CMD (
talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've reviewed this article for GA, and while it's pretty much there, there are some minor issues which need to be sorted out, so I've put it on hold for a week. Thanks. -- He to Hecuba ( talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
talkback|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard}}
My76Strat (
talk) 00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers on the Noticeboard. I did not consider that the Arbs could miss the discussion there and that it would maybe help to point the Arbitrators to it, my apologies for that. I have posted a follow-up set of questions. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Reformating_Emmy_Awards_episodic_Directing_and_Writing_templates.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
tb|He to Hecuba}}
--
He to Hecuba (
talk) 08:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi - could I ask why the personal info recently posted there wasn't suppressed in the end? Mato ( talk) 03:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Baelor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friday Night Lights ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'm leaving this note as an FYI ... just to let you know that I've quoted you here, as I understand some editors prefer the courtesy of knowing when they have been quoted or paraphrased (as, among other things, it allows them to make sure they weren't misconstrued).-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. You probably have it watchlisted, but I thought I'd let you know I left some comments about one of your GAs at Talk:Baelor#Some comments. Just looking at this page I can see that you're very busy here, but hopefully you can take a look over my comments when you get the chance. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is my draft attempt at reducing core policies to simple language by furnishing the reasons for them. Feel free to tear it apart. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I just now responded to something you wrote on my talk page by asking you a question. Since the discussion is really long and it was many hours ago when you wrote, I wanted to leave you a note here to make sure you see it, because I'm very curious to learn your answer.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
As one of the more active participants of WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force, would you like to comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security#WikiProject restructuring? Cheers, — Ruud 18:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Um -- I do not expect any answer, but I find it hard to fathom the motions being proposed on the "Unblock case discussion" page. I still rather think my proposal was elegant there, and wish it were directly proposed as being 1. short 2. simple 3. non-judgmental in a fairly moot case. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Jclemens, one way I look at it is...what is a bigger problem, an editor who is incivil in the midst of argy-bargy on a heated topic...or one who misuses sources or copyvios or engages in some other behaviour that other editors have to spend an extended period of time reviewing and cleaning up - some of the copyvio reviews are mindboggling in their scope. Personally, I have much less of a problem with an editor letting fly a few Anglo-Saxon expletives at me, than one who in a pseudo-polite manner insinuates that I have engaged in some negative behaviour that I am innocent of. Obviously if a situation is tense and someone gratuitously escalates it, that is a major pain in the neck too, and I do think that writing the four letters is not as immediate and hence more easily avoided than verbalising them. Anyway, back to reviewing abortion...or writing something to clear my head first... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I was wondering if you had just missed my repeated, patient requests for your comments and thoughts about how you believe the climate change sanctions should be lifted. Apparently not. After three weeks and three polite follow-up inquiries ( [2], [3], [4]) you went to the trouble of shortening the archive time on your talk page – while in the process of promptly and courteously replying to the other outstanding requests ( [5]) – just so you could finally quickly shuffle my request off into your archives. I'm just really, really disappointed that you couldn't even be bothered to tell me openly that you couldn't be bothered to answer my question. There's a basic standard of communicativeness that the community expects of Arbitrators, even if you're faced with editors who might disagree with you. I get that you're busy and that you have multiple demands on your time, but a short message telling me either that my interpretation of your reasoning was correct, or that you might handle things differently in future motions, or that you just don't want to share your reasoning with me because you don't like me – anything at all – would have been better than the brush-off you just gave. I mean really—you couldn't even bring yourself to manually archive my thread; you had to set the bot to do your dirty work? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
|
I have given this article a review and left comments at Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1. Thank you for you contributions. My main concern is the references and since it has been in the queue for so long I thought I would give you a chance to find some more reliable replacements. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am not a tech person at all, and find all of the deletions extremely confusing, so I'm hoping you can hand-hold me through an understanding - and help restore the pages.
1. The movie "Six Characters in Search of America" - is a REAL movie, on IMDB, and had screenings, and cast members are even semi-famous people. So the deletion of the page seems strange.
2. The deletion of the page for Rachel Wolf seems similarly strange, as she has a certain level of fame as well, as a singer, writer, producer and creator of an animal-related cause called "Patrick's Law." The Facebook page had 50,000 followers in one month and the website is approaching 100,000 views.
3. The deletion of the page for Stewart Wade (Rachel Wolf's collaborator on a few projects). Stewart has directed several indie films, both of which have been extensively reviewed, and one of them was even the source of a major controversy with Roger Ebert.
Therefore, all three pages should not have been deleted... and in fact, all need updating now as well. Please tell us how to navigate the maze of Wikipedia. Thank you.
Dear Jclemens, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the elections and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words. Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.
In order for your candidacy to be valid, your nomination statement must also include a declaration of any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee), and must express your willingness and ability to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic data policy.
You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! -- DQ (t) (e) 05:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Election 2011 candidate:
Jclemens
|
Can you please check the information on your row in the table on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Guide? Feel free to correct any mistakes or fill in any missing information. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Jclemens, With reference to the complaint I left some time ago I would like to offer apology for the tone and manner of it, and for showing impatience with the proceeding. I now see that ARBCOM cases can be somewhat complicated. Apart from submitting evidence I have stayed away from the proceedings mostly, and saw yesterday it is nearing conclusion. I won't try to defend my own behaviour on the article in question at those times when it was remiss. Once again I apologise for my lack of patience and the manner in which I raised the issue with you. Regards, DMSBel ( talk) 23:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
My laptop is in the shop, so it may be a day or two before I can address issues. I can still read email and review Wikipedia, but editing Wikipedia from a mobile device is quite tedious. I will amend this notice once I get it back. Jclemens-public ( talk) 23:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, there is currently a dispute at National Organization for Marriage as to whether the Photo manipulation section should stay or go. There is no consensus after an RfC. Does WP:BURDEN apply when there is no consensus? Does the content stay or go? Wikipedia:Consensus#When there is no consensus does not address this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
This user is currently blocked for edit warring, but IP addresses 202.156.11.12, 202.156.11.11, and 218.186.18.232 have been engaging in the same edit warring behavior on Magneto (comics). As a checkuser, can you see if these are related? Thanks. 129.33.19.254 ( talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
From what I understand from an email the health issues with Orangemarlin had been discussed privately amongst arbitrators already by early October. Mathsci ( talk) 15:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You restored the article. Shoudn't you restore the talk page too? Cheers, — Racconish Tk 06:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The Citation Barnstar | |
Thanks for fixing the citations on the root cellar article after I restored the article. A user with the IP address 205.213.111.50 made numerous inappropriate changes to that article. Is their a process to have them banned from future edits? Gavinski16 ( talk) 18:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added some new questions [6] to your candidate page, and I think it's in your best interest to address them before voting starts. Cheers, Skinwalker ( talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens.
The deletion log for Geospatial topology says: "21:43, January 19, 2010 Jclemens (talk · contribs) deleted "Geospatial topology" (Expired PROD, concern was: No meaningful content to say what "Geospatial topology" is and to distinguish it from "topology". Mostly a set of disconnected non-sentences. No attempt to clean-up for substantial period.)"
I've now started the current page from scratch and it hopefully addresses the content issues. However this is the first time I've re-created a deleted article so I thought I'd better check with you that I've followed the correct protocol. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 11:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Jclemens,
As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. -- Tznkai ( talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
There's an ANI thread which may concern you here (you're involved in the histories of both the pages linked directly, including declining the PROD of at least one blatant copyvio). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You're the drafting arbitrator. The evidence page says:
Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely...Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs....Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits.
Why did you use evidence in violation of this rule to characterize me as a POV-pusher who manipulates sources? Why did you decline to give me permission to exceed this evidence limit in my own defense? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(Undent)Please fully protect my home page and talk page. Thx. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven’t participated in it very much, but I’ve been closely following the discussion about whether it’s appropriate to have a finding of fact about OrangeMarlin despite his absence, and I definitely support the position you’re taking about this. However, I’m also concerned about this hurting your chances at re-election, and I’m especially worried about the ramifications of that if it does. In order for ArbCom to be effective, arbitrators have to be able to stand up for what they think is right for the community even when it involves opposing a popular editor or editors. If arbitrators can’t do that without it coming at the expense of their opportunity to be re-elected, then ArbCom is going to become subject to the same problem that Sandstein mentioned in his candidacy last year, where popular and experienced editors can get away with a lot more than new editors can, because of everyone being reluctant to sanction them. I also agree with what you said about how this problem contributes to the creation of a toxic editing environment and the decline in participation.
According to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, Wikipedia has around 300,000 people who edit at least once a month, while only 854 people voted in the ArbCom election last year. That means the arbitrators are chosen by around 0.3% of the community, and in general it’s the 0.3% of editors who are most active and experienced. I worry a lot about arbitrators being held accountable only to the tiny portion of the community who elects them, who generally aren’t the editors in greatest need of protection. Is this a concern that you share at all? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This article contains a few sentences about abortion but it is not in any sort of abortion category. Does it fall under the umbrella of semi-protection for 3 years?--v/r - T P 13:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, when and where does the discussion on pro-life/pro-choice article titles start? Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jmclemns, I'd like to make a fresh start on Wikipedia if possible, though I may take a short break from the site to get back in touch with some real world matters, and take stock. If that is permissible and Arbcom have no issue with it, then could I close my present account/ username, and set up a new one?. DMSBel ( talk) 11:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest restoring the page for my colleague Gillian Howie (philosopher) since she has now been promoted to the rank of professor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljameshill ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much! No hurry! Danieljameshill ( talk) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Please request possible.
Is it possible to develop an article Singer of the High School Musical, Corbin Bleu and become a good article See the article Arabic Wikipedia good article, can you? .
Look at this version will help you to become a good article. I do not see any adjustment well in this article, can you make a good article as an article Biographies.
Success in your life. Goodbye. -- 2.91.153.114 ( talk) 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well my friend, but can you fix this article, delete the non-reliable sources. And to delete the template at the top of the article. Thank you my friend. Such as this ( version). Cheers. -- 2.91.153.114 ( talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I appreciate the facilitating of the Abortion Arbcom, by Coren and yourself. While I'd have liked to have been given leave to appeal the topic ban imposed, I appreciate the case is closed now. I have asked Coren for clarification of its scope.
The proceeding however frequently mimicked a litigation (but without many of the checks) rather than arbitration sadly, with one or two participants acting more than a little bit like prosecutors. In fact in the aftermath its taken me to clarify in my own mind again that there is a sharp distinction between the two in several important respects. Whilst I in no way consider either Coren or yourself lacking in ability to handle complex cases, MastCell took part in fairly litigatory manner, and perhaps it needs explained to him what the difference between litigation and arbitration is. DMSBel (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Going along with the heading of this, I did not agree with the results of the case but you did a good job, Jclemens. Thanks. NYyankees51 ( talk) 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
As to the broader topic of this thread, I don't think the underlying assumptions are correct. Looking at the actual evidence page, it would appear that 12 editors presented substantial amounts of evidence: NYyankees51, Eraserhead, Vsevolod Krolikov, Anythingyouwant, HuskyHuskie, MastCell, NuclearWarfare, KillerChihuahua, DMSBel, CMLITC, ArtifexMayhem, and RoyBoy. It's not clear to me that any particular "side" is overrepresented on the evidence page - perhaps you could elaborate on your perspective to the contrary? On the workshop/workshop talk pages, Anythingyouwant (generally viewed as a "pro-life" editor) was the heaviest editor by almost a 2:1 margin.
As to defending oneself, it would seem that most of the sanctioned editors did in fact avail themselves of that opportunity. Anythingyouwant defended himself aggressively and at great length. NYyankees51 defended himself on the evidence page and responded to specific concerns here. Haymaker defended himself in a lengthy thread here. As for DMSBel, I doubt that anything said in his defense would have altered the outcome; the fact that he was blocked (again) for edit-warring on abortion during the voting phase of the case probably said it all, in a deeds-louder-than-words sense. In any case, I don't see that the sanctioned editors failed to offer a defense, perhaps with the exceptions of Michael C. Price and Gandydancer.
Finally, it's interesting to see different perspectives on this case's outcome. From my point of view, it looks like a number of editors were editing in service of their personal agendas at the expense of the encyclopedia, and were sanctioned as a result. To others, apparently, it looks like the "pro-choice" side won a victory over the "pro-life" side on the basis of better tactical organization. To be honest, I think the latter view - on prominent display in this thread - speaks clearly to an ongoing conception of Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, which is unfortunate. MastCell Talk 22:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Kenatipo, I don't find your reasoning for not taking MastCell up on his offer too compelling. I think you're undermining your position by postulating inequities, but failing to work to find and document them. If I missed something, if there was a miscarriage of justice by way of inappropriatley unbalanced sanctions, I really want to know that. At the same time, I'm far from the best person to review my own work--I've reviewed so much I get crosseyed going near the topic. If you won't do it, do you think you could recruit someone else to do so? Jclemens-public ( talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there - I only got a notification in September that a proposal had been made. I never knew that this had moved onto the evidence and later proposed decision sections until I looked one day for the first time and saw that I was going to be sanctioned. If I had been made aware of how far this would have progressed I would have been active in the evidence section not only sharing diffs and commenting on other users actions but also in working to explain mine. I generally agree with Kenatipo, this feels more like justice half done than justice miscarried. - Haymaker ( talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I have reviewed A Golden Crown, and placed it on hold. You can see my comments at the review page. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 10:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven’t been paying close attention to this because I’m involved in a dispute on another article, but I’ve just noticed that during the week since the abortion arbitration case closed, OrangeMarlin seems to already be returning to his old ways. He’s making 50+ edits per day, so inability to participate due to illness clearly is no longer an issue. And he’s also returning to the same uncivil behavior that was discussed during the case, although since he’s no longer editing abortion articles, it’s now happening elsewhere.
Here are some of his comments directed at other editors during the time since the case closed: [10] [11] [12]
And here are some of his comments about what he thinks of you, based on your having argued in favor of him being topic banned. [13] [14] [15] [16] The last comment is directed at both you and me, with the phrase “go fuck yourself” four times in one paragraph.
When ArbCom ruled that OrangeMarlin needed to contact them upon his return to editing and before he resumed participating in abortion articles, I’m assuming that what they intended wasn’t that he would just continue the same behavior elsewhere. Do you have an opinion about how this ought to be handled at this stage? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Your argument to revert to "Afd" was a non-argument, since "deletion" and "discussion" are both at "d". But since I was reverted again, , and respecting WP:BRD, I opened a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Bold.2C_revert.2C_discuss. Debresser ( talk) 13:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay lets finish this. I went through the whole article again and instead of suggesting changes just made them. Hope you don't mind, revert/change any you don't agree with. The cast in the guest list still confuses me a bit. Apart from that I am happy with it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
What exactly does numerical representation [17] have to do with the issue? AfD's and DRV's aren't supposed to be pollings. But instead an argumentation based on policy, with a derived closure based upon the weight of the arguments. That was the trouble with the AfD closure - and it is the trouble with the DRV closure - that this is not happening. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar | ||
Thanks Jclemens for helping to promote Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
:***Editors are responsible for their own editing, essentially indefinitely, but especially in a proximate ArbCom case. Whether they're inebriated, emotionally disturbed, mentally incompetent, suffering physical pain, facing their own mortality... none of these external circumstances ... absolve an editor from the responsibility to edit in an appropriate manner, which includes collegiality.
I wasn't paying attention to any of the event from November; just the last 3 days so I don't have a real solid opinion on that period. WP:civil needs this added. Alatari ( talk) 09:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
So here is a succinct form of it that could be added to the WP:civil:
I'm of the opinion that Inebriation is possible number one external factor for adult editors being uncivil followed by overly tired and then narcissistic personality and borderline personality. A great deal of the other problems are from being under 18 and lacking emotional maturity. Alatari ( talk) 09:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, how many editors are from those countries? My great grandmother was Austrian and she was trouble. ;) Alatari ( talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was disappointed when you didn't chime in here. I'd love to hear your thoughts! causa sui ( talk) 04:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jclemens. How long do we have to wait for the scrutineers to certify the ArbCom election? I voted in support of your re-election for your strong stand in favor of CIVILITY and for the common sense in your comments. It is truly discouraging to see a strong current flowing against you. Hope you make it, man! -- Kenatipo speak! 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a reply to your comments on Orangemarlins talk page. As far as I know/recall we have not previously crossed paths; I first became aware of the current situation when the recent AN/I thread was started. Personally, I am quite relieved at the action Risker took in indeffing OM et. al.
Nothing herein is intended to excuse Orangemarlin's behavior. In my opinion, he should have been indeffed and his "parting shot" comments suppressed when he announced his departure last July. That did not happen; it is was it is.
I understand you have been subjected to repeated loathsome personal attacks by Orangemarlin. You did not deserve this. At this point it is cliche that Wikipedia is dysfunctional in maintaining its civility pillar: the problem is everyone agrees we should be civil but no one agrees what that means.
I understand and empathize with your reasoning that Wikipedia standards should remain constant regardless of real life factors affecting editors. However, Wikipedia is a social environment and, after a certain amount of time a perceptive observer of the human condition should conclude The most illogical thing a person can do is expect people to behave logically. The fact is that people have a tendency "to feel sorry for" a person under going significant tribulations. I thought the ArbCom remedy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Orangemarlin_instructed was a Solomon like response.
Captain Occam's notification to ArbCom [18] was all that was necessary and prudent (although his interpretation that what uninvolved editors would consider "playful banter" was "ominous" was off). SirFozzie promptly replied that matter was being handled. Occam's next posting [ [19]], specifically This might sound overly cynical of me, but it seems like a strange coincidence that after being absent from Wikipedia for four months, OrangeMarlin returned within a few hours after the decision to not sanction him due to his absence received enough support to pass was a pseudo-carefully worded vile personal attack. The proper response at the point should have been a stern rebuke. Your reply is easily perceived as passively endorsing this attack.
Hard work, solid reasoning skills, understanding of policy and believe in the work of the encyclopedia are necessary conditions for an effective ArbCom or senior administrator and all the evidence I've seen thus far indicates you have demonstrated these. While necessary, there are not sufficient; a certain cultural sensitivity is also required, and currently that appears to be lacking. Gerardw ( talk) 17:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You have asked for specific feedback on my opinion of how you could have handled the events surrounding Orangemarlin more optimally. I have reviewed the Abortion arbitration case and the current text on Orangemarlin's talk page but make no claim to have fully reviewed all past interactions.
I have found this difficult due to the extraordinary circumstances of an editor whose behavior has far exceeded the standards of Wikipedia civility suffering a tragic near death experience as discussion of their actions transpired, and I do not envy the difficulties of arbitrating such a case. After this additional review, my overall impression is as I first posted; it is not so much a matter of content as tone. Additionally, I have relunctanctly reached the conclusions that there is likely no possible wording you could have to used to avoid offending some editors who might consider your viewpoint heartless; it would be counterproductive to the effective operation of Wikipedia if we become so politicially correct we fail to speak forthrightly. While due diligience with respect to precision of phrasing is appropriate, there is a point we have to realize Rick Nelson's Garden party anthem you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself
That said, I have identified specific phrasing which could be problematic, along with alternative suggestions. In isolation, I would consider these nits and would not raise them with any editor who had not specifically invited a critical analysis; they are intended as implicit suggestions for future actions as an editor/administrator/arbitraitor in a more positive way rather than finding of fault for past actions. I would consider it unfortunate if other editors observing this dialog saw this as an opportunity to pile on and rehash old grievances.
You wrote:
It saddens me that so much of the committee is unwilling to call egregious behavior... egregious. Orangemarlin was made aware of the case, and declined to participate. Off-wiki reality does not excuse yet another clearly "guilty" (inasmuch as this is not a real judicial proceeding, yet evidence is presented and fault is being assessed) party escaping a just and appropriate reward for their behavior. Likewise, I am aware of past ArbCom conflicts with Orangemarlin, but that was substantially before my time and no factor, for good or ill, in my assessment of Orangemarlin's behavior. If we can't sanction Orangemarlin--no, wait, if we can't even come to the agreement that his behavior was entirely inappropriate and inexcusable--then we really have no moral authority to sanction any other party in these disputes.
I disagree with much of the committee deferring finding on fact due to an editors inability to participate as it is unfair to the other parties in these disputes. While understanding the reasoning for deferral in this particular case, it seems a dangerous precedent it which parties can opt out of arbitration proceedings by not participating. Likewise, I am aware of past ArbCom conflicts with Orangemarlin, but that was substantially before my time and no factor in my assessment of Orangemarlin's behavior.
1.First choice. Well, first choice of presented options. I have decided not to put forward an outright ban because it is apparent there is no support for it, which is a shame.
would have been better without the "which is a shame."
Or should we just drop the pretense, and automagically give everyone who says they have real-world medical problems a "get out of ArbCom free" pass? That seems to be the direction we're heading, and I don't see any collective will within the committee to change it.
As I indicated in my initial post, this by far the most troublesome comment. In the context it which it was raised -- an editor's veiled implication that Orangemarlin was faking or exaggerating their real life condition, a firm statement that assume good faith is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia and reiterating that the committee was aware of Orangemarlin's return and that Elen had contacted them would have been vastly preferrable. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the thread in question, Occam raised his concern, which was appropriately answered by SirFozzie. Occam then repeated his concern, this time insinuating that Orangemarlin was manipulating his illness to affect the outcome of the ArbCom case. That was an incredibly uncivil accusation. Frankly, if I had been through a near-death experience, I probably wouldn't care if someone called me a sociopathic fucktard, but I would care, deeply, if they insinuated that I was somehow faking aspects of my illness. It should be obvious to any reasonably empathetic person that Occam's comment was highly offensive.
At that point, there were several options: calling out Occam's incivility, ignoring it, or amplifying on his insinuations. I wouldn't have faulted you for ignoring his comment - certainly I get a bit tired of people claiming that it's my personal responsibility to call out every instance of incivility, and I think the best course is usually to ignore uncivil comments rather than draw attention to them (after all, they're usually a form of attention-seeking behavior). I was disappointed to see you take the third tack. Intentionally or not (and it appears it was unintentional), your follow-on comment had the effect of amplifying Occam's insinuation. It's one thing for Occam, an editor with what could charitably be called a checkered past, to make such a comment, but another for it to apparently gain traction and support from the drafting Arb on the case.
So I think a lot of it isn't so much what you said as the timing, manner, and context in which you said it. But that's just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 19:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on another term to ArbCom. Or maybe I should say, sorry you have deal with all the troubles of Wikipedia again. Either way, I'm happy for your success. BTW, thanks for the WP:NIME essay. I do feel it reflects a segment of our population here at Wikipedia. Thanks for your dedicated support of our project. Best regards. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, forgive me if this is a dumb question, but are abortion articles still subject to 1RR after the case, or are they just under discretionary sanctions? Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 21:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Topic overrun by unhelpful input
|
---|
Why are you, an administrator, nominating an article such as this for GA status? Not to be rude but the article is quite bad. This just doesn't make any sense to me... Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Why are you re-nominating Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) without making any of the fixes indicated in the recent review and in the tags in the article? You do realize that it will be failed in its current state, right? As TheLeftorium indicated above, this is going to be a waste of some reviewer's time. Articles should come to GAN needing only a few fixes, not a complete overhaul. As an administrator, you really should know better. Ruby 2010/ 2013 20:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I also want to note that this is disruptive behavoir and kick in the nuts to all who actually worked on articles before nominating. Especially renominating an article which was failed without even fixing the issues. Why are you wasting reviewers time? You take valuable time away from people who actually worked on something. -- Maitch ( talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Humorous images, messing with the below thread.
|
---|
Hi JClemens, is it too late for me to comment here? [22] I've had a hellish week at work and am just getting around to my emails and Wikipedia notifications. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
I'm not a very active contributer to wikipedia (have only made a few anonymous spelling corrections etc.) So my reasoning may be very off in this case. Please let me know in that case!
I recently came across a character called Nassim Haramein. On youtube, he has some very new-agey ideas that he mixes with physical theories. Classic pseudo-science-stuff. In this case, however I got intriuged, because the problems he formulates are interesting. I wanted to look around for some critics, wich is alway available for controversial ideas. Naturally, I went to wikipedia, were I found out that you had deleted his page in 2009.
The reason was that he was not noteworthy if I understand thins correctly. However, most of the arguments are about weather his Ideas are plausable or not.
Maybe this has changed since 2009 or maybe it doesn't matter, however, I get around 550 000 hits on google on his name and I he has a bunch of videos on youtube , some with views in the 100 000:s. He also seems to do a lot of lectures. He also won this peer-reviewed award(however I have no idea if it is to be concidered valid) http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/1303.jsp
Also his latest paper has been peer reiviewd and published at American Institute of Physics, according to his own blog atleast: http://theresonanceproject.org/the-schwarzschild-proton-paper-at-the-american-institute-of-physics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoffernolgren ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
To me this seems like enough to concider him a public figure. At least so it's possible to present critisism to his ideas by people who get exposed to them.
Have great day, I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this matter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoffernolgren ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
On 1 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Fudge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that American theologian Edward Fudge is the subject of an upcoming film, Hell and Mr. Fudge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Fudge.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I hope I'm doing the talk thing right. I like to initiate a page for the Iranian Artist Mr. Alireza Sadaghdar, and there is already a deleted page. The page I would like to make is a biography of the artist. If it is the same content as the deleted page, will you please bring the page back so that I can edit it and add new content? Thanks. Mehdisad ( talk) 07:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You blocked for that? Boy, I wish you'd been around when people were adding claims about George Soros cited to sources that called him a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" and paragraphs about politicians cited to press releases from organizations that campaign against them. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of confusion around whether time to post evidence could be extended and whether subpages are permissible for extensive evidence. Some editors me included posted evidence close or slightly after the deadline making it impossible for others to rebut the evidence. In my case I decided to post late in the day and realize I didn't give much time for Doc James to deal with the evidence against him. A definitive statement from the drafting arbs on whether the deadline for posting evidence has been extended and whether evidence can be linked to on subpages might settle the environment on that arbitration which is ever so slightly starting to look like at three ring circus. I can't speak for anyone else but I'd be happy to give editors extra time to reply to my evidence. ( olive ( talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC))
Hi. On November 28, as Anythingyouwant was leaving in a huff, he asked you to fully protect his user and talk pages. You said you'd rather have an uninvolved admin do this than do it yourself. I obliged on December 15, so these pages are now indefinitely fully protected. I wanted to check with you to see if you still feel this protection should be kept up. I know WP:UPROT says that "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected due to retirement is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page" — but I figure you had your reasons in this case. — Rich wales 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:
This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.
I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Note this review will be claimed as part of the 2012 WikiCup. Review page is at Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA2. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
When looking at the original, I could understand the nomination... specially as coverage under its Serbian title of Jelenin svet was so limited. I greatly appreciate it when a nominator reverses himself upon article improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Even though I don't agree with all of them I thought it was really good that you made so many comments on the Muhammad workshop. Good job. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Joss Whedon has revealed several times that the reason Alan Tudyk's character was killed in Serenity was because he couldn't commit to sequels. Same for Ron Glass. This actually threatened the deal going through, so the only solution was to kill off those characters, and so prove to Universal that sequels could be locked before production on the first film began. (Joss explains this here: [ Joss Whedon Experience 2010]) That doesn't mean Tudyk and Glass wouldn't have reprised their roles, it just means that if Universal didn't want to negotiate a deal with them, the sequels could still go ahead. In Whedon's original "Kitchen Sink" 190 page script, it's the exact same story, but everyone survives at the end. Don't get too miffed with the actors, though, it was Fox that put everyone in this position. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The article The Wolf and the Lion you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Wolf and the Lion for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
As an update, I've left you some homework for The Wolf and the Lion...not a huge amount of work...check it out anyway. I was going to do Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) as well, but it only has 3 footnotes. That needs alot more work, both in referencing and embellishing some bits - can we find some more commentary from GRRM or directors, actors, reviewers about the episode? It'd really help. I am mentioning this as I think it might take alot of work and be good to do it before someone starts a seven day timer ticking. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: If you're trawling through references, would it help to have another article reviewed at the same time, or would you prefer to focus on one at a time? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, how should I deal with the IP user who is harassing me on my talk page? [23] Thanks! NYyankees51 ( talk) 01:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Already protected for something like a day. We'll see if longer protection is needed tomorrow night. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
J, I'd appreciate a response to this post. I'm sure you just missed it in the crush, but I've had too many experiences in this dispute with other editors sidestepping rational arguments that they dislike. It's frustrating to try to have a discussion where editors ignore every reasonable thing I say and harp endlessly on every perceived slight they can dig out of diffs, and it would be nice to change that dynamic. -- Ludwigs2 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the image of Jesse Dirkhising. I never understood why it was deleted in the first place. Caden cool 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've started the review for The Pointy End. I haven't taken a thorough look at the article yet, but I left some preliminary comments on the review page. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I see you've voted both for and against Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Proposed_decision#Betacommand_limited_to_BAG_approved_tasks, although it's true that your support was only a "distant choice". ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 14:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
As you may've noticed, I've just started an amendment thread about Mathsci's behavior toward and about me. However, AGK has raised concerns about whether an amendment thread was the best way to handle the issue. As I said to AGK in the amendment thread, I don't think going to AE is a good idea. In retrospect I'm unsure if I should've come to you about this initially, since you warned Mathsci about this specific issue pretty recently ( [24]). I'm unsure of where's the best place to deal with this, so I was wondering if you had any idea of what should happen if he were to do what you warned him about again (which he did). Any help or advice would be appreciated. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 04:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion here that you might want to look at.
As per your suggestion I raised the issue with Roger Davies, but his response did not address the issue. I'm not sure I understand the reason for Arbcom's lack of response in the amendment thread, but it means admins at AE are trying to take matters into their own hands. And as you can see from the discussion in EdJohnson's user talk, this includes the suggestion that in the future AE will make decisions based on off-wiki information about editors. You said here that Arbcom has decided this information shouldn't be discussed in public, so this is the first time I've seen an admin suggest that AE go against what Arbcom has decided.
I can't try to resolve this at AE. I've already seen in the amendment thread that the group of editors who opposed me on R&I more than a year ago are using this opportunity to bring up off-wiki information about me in public. Anything I post related to this issue at a noticeboard will likely get a similar response, and now I see that I can't count on admins caring whether my privacy is respected.
I understand that Arbcom is busy, but there are some issues that can't be ignored forever. At this point, it looks like Arbcom's lack of response for the past week may result in a decision that will make outing unavoidable in certain future AE requests. I know from your comment above that this isn't something Arbcom would agree with, so I'm asking that Arbcom please not continue to ignore this issue. At this point, even a response from an arbitrator who's unfamiliar with the R&I case would be a lot better than the consequences of no response. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 05:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be easier for your fellow Arbs to accept as principle (or even FoF) that applying unusual/novel standards only to a subset of images (which also happen to be the ones controversial for certain belief-structure reasons) rather than all images in the article is the most troublesome issue with respect to "gaming the system". I hope I've managed to illustrate that a bit in my [late] /Evidence. Unlike what you proposed at principle 10, such a principle [or FoF] does not require presupposition about the motives of editors engaging in argumentation distinctly different in sourcing/educational standards for various images. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 04:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering that POLA was pretty firmly rejected by the community in regards to how the Foundation described it, I think it's rather inappropriate to be using it in any incarnation in an active Arbcom case. You can't advise editors to follow a principle that the community has rejected. Silver seren C 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps "Once an outside pressure group has publicly requested that Wikipedia content be changed, future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the results desired by the outside pressure group." should become "Once an argument for removing material has been rejected on policy grounds (censorship, for example), future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the same results."
The focus on "outside pressure group" seems to be the source of the resistance, and I don't think it was really your point.— Kww( talk) 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I know it's still early in the ani discussion, but I'm seeing some range of "may be a bit much" in regards to the DreamFocus block. I note that he has now posted an unblock request, and I think several admins. may consider it a possibility. I didn't want to just "approve" it without coming and talking to you first though. What are your thoughts? — Ched : ? 13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Has there ever been a case at ArbCom regarding the deletionist/inclusionist debate? I am thinking there needs to be some effort at resolving the question of how the deletion process operates. Whether that would mean ArbCom or some other process is something I would also like to know. Is there a better way of raising ideas for decisively improving the process?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I think part of the problem is that most people who use the terms (and an even larger percentage of those who use them in a derogatory fashion) have either not read, or not understood, m:Inclusionism or m:Deletionism. pablo 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that the Committee has avoided framing a case as us v. them on purpose, but the cases I can think of that strongly implicate the debate are: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. MBisanz talk 19:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I just spotted the now-closed ANI thread on your block of Dream Focus for what you characterize as "battleground behavior" and what I would consider an unwarned bad block on an editor exercising free speech. I just wanted to let you know that I disagree with your block and see it as a rogue action, no matter how the flash "consensus" of The Usual Suspects at ANI describes it. Carrite ( talk) 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, well. The {{ rescue}} template has been deleted. One could argue that the close was premature, since there was an associated RfC also encompassing the TfD, but that's just a technicality. Reading the debate, there's clearly a large group of people who see the ARS as nothing more than a hyper-inclusionist voting bloc. That's unfortunate, but not as inaccurate as I would like it to be.
As such, while the ARS could probably continue in some way, shape, or form, I think it's an opportune time to supplant it with something that does the work, without the drama. Long-time readers of this talk page will note that this isn't the first time I've postulated something along these lines, but this time, it's probably the right time to actually do something about it.
To that end, I will be kicking off the Content Rehabilitation Project. The fundamental premise of the project is that deleted content represents something into which some editor invested time and effort, and is a source of topics and article "parts" that can, with appropriate effort, be made acceptable for the encyclopedia. In brief, it will have no membership lists, not take any part in inclusion guideline discussion, reward participants for actually improving articles, work on problematic content that needs help: whether older content that needs to be rewritten/merged/whatever, deleted content that needs to be brought up to current Wikipedia standards before mainspace, or the traditional domain of the ARS, content facing a current AfD that may be salvageable during the duration of that discussion. Want to help out? Let me know here. Jclemens ( talk) 09:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you please restore the page Toxik Ephex, or at least send me a copy so I can recreate it with perhaps some more credible sources. Care was taken to get the page up to wikipedia standards and many other pages now point to this deleted page as a reference, that is validility enough in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.230.225.6 ( talk) 11:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, near the bottom of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol, someone's asking about the page title for this oversight action; whether or not you believe the title appropriate to mention at the SPI, it might help if you commented there. Nyttend ( talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Noetica added me, along with ten other editors to a complaint that had been brought by admin SarekofVulcan ( ∆ edit, here). That just seem so wrong. Greg L ( talk) 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 10:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
POLA failed - I have made comments on the talk page thereof where I hope to simplify the wording of what I hope is what ArbCom views as the gist. Collect ( talk) 12:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens,
I just listed an article for deletion that you have previously nominated but later withdrew. This was in 2008 and I don't think that since then there has been enough to establish notability. You can join the discussion here. Thanks. Noformation Talk 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=475016091&oldid=474956190 :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You blocked Juice Leskinen as a sock, but I couldn't find an investigation. Is it one of those secret ones, or based purely on behaviour? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 21:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind redirecting that to Mortal Engines Quartet in lieu of deletion, per WP:ATD? I know no one brought up that possibility in the AfD, yet it remains the best policy-compliant outcome... Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, just pointing out that I seem not to be the only person who has problems with User:Epeefleche's behaviour (including a clear attempt to influence an AfD discussion by page blanking and whitewashing my criticism from his talk page). He has already been banned not once, not twice but three times for offences that seem to range from sockpuppetry to disruption and questionable methods in an AfD. -- hydrox ( talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Does WP:WEaPOn run afoul of WP:NPA in any way? Noting its odd preoccupation with User:Joedesantis and the material implying that his acts are improper to say the least? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross purposes with regard to "serious". It doesn't mean that we only cover "serious" topics. I'm fine with articles on Game of Thrones, or Pokemon, or Lost characters. Those subjects can all be treated seriously. I mean that we need to take seriously the idea of summarizing and conveying knowledge—a goal which seems obvious and central but typically gets buried in wikilawyering over content policies and civility.
Our content policies are usually interpreted to mean that "it was published in print, so it needs to go in our article", or "we need to present every crazy idea credulously and let the reader decide which is correct". Both of those ideas are antithetical to the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. But they're the dominant interpretations of WP:V and WP:NPOV, respectively, at both the community and often the ArbCom level. MastCell Talk 18:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
At any rate, back to seriousness. Given its baggage, I'd rather say that we try to be accurate, comprehensive, and exercise due care in our coverage. I think that hits all the important bits of "serious", without implying that Pokemon can't be covered. :-) Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jclemens,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
talkback|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters}}
-
Michaelzeng7 (
talk -
contribs) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"We" quote things with the variant spelling used in the source, "period"
The "we" was exceptionally patronising. The "period" was not quite so patronising, but still very patronising none the less. You see the usage of "we" implies an 'Us v. them' mentality which designates anyone who isn'yt complaint with YOUR viewpoint 'one of them'. I suppose Wikipedia can be forgiven for not having a proper vetting process for those promoted to the higher level as it's a relatively new entity and it's political structure has not yet matured. Consider the polar opposites of 'Advanced C programming' and 'Retarded Z personality'. Brian W. Kernighan would be disappointed really. Although I suspect Dennis Ritchie, from my relatively few meetings with him would not have cared much as long as your voids were placed correctly. EOF Vexorg ( talk) 07:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
talkback|Talk:History of South Asia|Requested move}}
An RM based on opinions expressed in the AfD. Hope you can chime in, as you did in the AfD!
CMD (
talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've reviewed this article for GA, and while it's pretty much there, there are some minor issues which need to be sorted out, so I've put it on hold for a week. Thanks. -- He to Hecuba ( talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
talkback|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard}}
My76Strat (
talk) 00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers on the Noticeboard. I did not consider that the Arbs could miss the discussion there and that it would maybe help to point the Arbitrators to it, my apologies for that. I have posted a follow-up set of questions. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Reformating_Emmy_Awards_episodic_Directing_and_Writing_templates.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
tb|He to Hecuba}}
--
He to Hecuba (
talk) 08:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi - could I ask why the personal info recently posted there wasn't suppressed in the end? Mato ( talk) 03:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Baelor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friday Night Lights ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'm leaving this note as an FYI ... just to let you know that I've quoted you here, as I understand some editors prefer the courtesy of knowing when they have been quoted or paraphrased (as, among other things, it allows them to make sure they weren't misconstrued).-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. You probably have it watchlisted, but I thought I'd let you know I left some comments about one of your GAs at Talk:Baelor#Some comments. Just looking at this page I can see that you're very busy here, but hopefully you can take a look over my comments when you get the chance. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)