Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Wikipedia obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

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)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing.

BTW--I am fairly certain I know the answer based on your response, but just to check -- is leaving a note such as the one that I left you above something you would suggest an editor do in general, whenever quoting another editor, as a matter of courtesy? And, if so, is that reflected somewhere in policy, or simply something that one might become aware of over time by editing and receiving input from others (as I have)? If you know. I poked around looking for written guidance on the issue when I thought about it just now, but didn't happen to find any.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is only required or expected, to the best of my knowledge, if you're reporting a user for misconduct at a noticeboard or somesuch. Otherwise, I'd say it's just best practice, since I know of nowhere a general rule on the topic is codified. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey, those are some great, concrete suggestions. I'll see what I can do about them tomorrow. If you feel like giving the same treatment to any of the other articles in the season, I'd welcome the attention. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten through the lead, and probably agree with 70% of your ideas, yours inspired even better edit ideas in 20%, and 10% I didn't find compelling--which, considering how opinionated I am, is a ringing endorsement of the value of your proposed edits. As is, I'm going to be caught up in Arbitration business and responding to another GA review for the rest of the week. Why don't you go ahead and make the rest of the edits you proposed? If I disagree, I can go through and copyedit the ones that I disagree with, but on the whole, they appear to be a marked improvement. The only thing I ask is that you look through the other articles of the series, and try to keep the style consistent (e.g., not linking actor names in the lead) between the other articles in the Game of Thrones first season. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I'll make the changes in the next few hours and you're of course free to revert/copyedit any you disagree with. I'll also try and have a look over some of the other articles when I get the chance. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Talk:Baelor/GA1 was deleted since the reviewer was a banned sockpuppet. It would probably be best if someone else could review the article for GA status. If you'd rather re-do the GA review and provide that list as feedback, I can work with that as well. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look too, I saw the episode a few weeks back and really liked it. (I didn't see this thread and opened up an individual reassessment of the page, oops). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An individual reassessment is probably the right way to go, when there's more of a question on the appropriateness of the reviewer than on the part of the nominator or the state of the article. I welcome constructive feedback, and will work to remedy any identified deficiencies. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've closed the GAR as "Kept". HtH seems to have done an Ok job on the review to begin with, and Jenks' feedback on the talkpage was pretty helpful too. Thanks for the quick responses on my feedback! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Yeah, I suspect he did a good job on an article I wanted done as part of a set hoping for some quid pro quo. While I appreciate the job I did, banned means banned, at least until a successful appeal, and demonstrating good content work is generally not part of the problem. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the article's still a GA and it's now even better in quality. I'll probably take a look at some of the other articles in the season in the next few weeks when I get some spare time. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In god knows how many years of reading Arbcom proposals, that (Timidguy ban appeal) must be the sanest one I have seen given what you had to work with. In fact I registered just to congratulate you and the others involved. Good job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful that the level of care and effort we put into getting that one right shines through. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really does. Addresses the concerns of fairness in ban appeals, the various aspects of 'how far should/can an admin go', and ultimately that certain types of behavior on WP wont be tolerated. However as a cynical person, I dont think some of them have a hope in hell of making it through. Especially after the letdown that was the civility decision. Which has ended up with someone slapped on the wrist for being uncivil, but no actual plan of action on preventing the same behavior in the future. But I really really hope I am pleasantly surprised. Also, dont take my choice of nickname as any sort of comment on your position ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the civility decision is a call to the community to get its act together; it's a lot easier to deal with one particular person who is behaving contrary to expectations, vs. a whole group of people who are each collectively acting less than ideally. As such, you don't find too many sanctions, but there is a bunch of groundwork laid for future discussions, sanctions, and enforcement. Culture change doesn't happen overnight, even when it's calling a community back to its own self-stated ideals. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I might stick around to see if it works. I suspect even the most light-handed methods of attempting to direct culture change (even if its just reminding WP editors of what we/they want to be!) are going to go awry. However since my areas of interest on WP (mainly because of my job) lie in its editor dispute/mediation & arbitration, I might have to go back to lurking. But feel free to point me in a direction if you think I should go active. My talkpage is now open. And also uncluttered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpectedly almost all passed. I have a hat to eat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it will have been a rather sweeping outcome that I did not anticipate either. Jclemens (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of text that has been taken up by certain people over the years in Arbitration, perhaps it was just a case of the straw that broke the camel's back? Not that I am suggesting Arbcom are camels. Granted my time at work is now going to be less interesting as I suspect I will have less to read in my spare moments. But once again, well done, a bright spot in the recent cases.Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question related to one of your posts: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Who controls the artibration policy?.   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there... but that was a relatively simple answer to find. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posted to you and AGK)

I thought I should let you know that I had some questions about the wording of PhilKnight's proposed motion here. Your input there might be helpful. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment here about the WP:SHARE issue that Roger Davies mentioned. The thread is so long now that I'm afraid it might be overlooked.

I'd always thought that WP:SHARE means that I shouldn't edit race and intelligence articles, not that I shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all. Contributing to science articles and creating illustrations for them is important to me, and I'm currently in the middle of writing the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article among other things. If Arbcom is going to consider a site-ban for me (which seems to be what Roger Davies is suggesting), I hope the other arbitrators will give some careful consideration to whether my involvement in the project is really doing more harm than good. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion on that talk page. If you're worried about things being overlooked, posting separately here certainly won't help any. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jclemens, I came across this page, Rajiv Chhabra, and noticed that it had been previously deleted by you. Since it doesn't seem very notable, I thought I should check and see if it should be removed again. The creator also created a related article, NRI Cell, which doesn't seem notable either. Those were the only two edits that user has made. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make a new deletion nomination (after following, WP:BEFORE, please) if you remain unconvinced of these articles' notability. Jclemens-public (talk)

During your election campaign I made some comments about you on the election discussion page, indicating that I thought there had been various problems in the handling of the abortion case, for which you had been the main drafter. The problems mentioned there were not unrelated with Captain Occam's subsequent site-ban on wikipedia. After you were elected—and this is only a vague recollection, which I have not checked with diffs—you made some acidic comments about those who had made remarks about you during your election campaign, which I suppose must necessarily have included me. You also seemed at an earlier stage to have "adopted" Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin as your "pets". (That impression could be faulty.) In the circumstances, do you think it is completely appropriate, per WP:INVOLVED, to be making any kind of comments in the amendment request at the moment? Do you not think in fact that it would have been more appropriate for you to have recused from discussion on-wiki or off-wiki in early January? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the more exasperating things about the whole situation was your assumption of bad faith on my part. When Occam was here trying to get me to sanction you, I suggested instead that he help out by reviewing publicly available evidence (talk page diffs showing inappropriate conduct). As I said before, I did this to try and distract him from your common and seemingly intractable dispute. You chose to opine that such was a biased handling of the situation, which is your right. However, administrator action does not trigger WP:INVOLVED--only personal or editorial-level disagreement, and I am not recalling any instance where I have been in a content or intepersonal dispute with you. Likewise, when someone participates in the electoral process, that doesn't trigger INVOLVED either, else each arbitrator would have to recuse on each guide writer and every editor who had offered a public opinion, good or bad, on the arb as candidate. Having said that, I would be inclined to recuse if the solution were an outright sanction on you, instead of a bilateral interaction ban. As is, I think there's enough objective evidence that you and Ferahgo don't need to be interacting that I'm not particularly concerned about the appearance of impropriety. Still, I'll ask the rest of the committee what they think about it, and if the general opinion is that it would be better for me to recuse, then I will--of course, this might have the unintended consequence of getting some arbs to comment more quickly on the interaction ban proposal. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the message to the rest of the committee seeking input just now went out. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moot now. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. For the record, the response was rather anemic, but unanimous that there was nothing which would prompt my recusal. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you please undelete the Article Greenware (computing)?

Regards, DSp

Found here: http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1467 http://wordweb.info/free/licence5.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.2.164.178 (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was done yesterday. I tagged it for notability, feel free to improve it. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{You've Got Mail}} Rivertorch (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in email, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for overturning G11 on the page DesignTech Systems created by me. Prateekshah03 —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]