User talk:Jclemens: Difference between revisions

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:

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)

Most cases that Arbcom sees are, in fact, adversarial. Rather than a prosecutor and defendant, however, two parties plead their cases, often using diffs to demonstrate how the "opposing" parties have failed to follow Wikipedia's conduct expectations. It's my belief that the case could have been resolved sooner if more folks had been actively pointing out the worst, most actionable failings of others. Indeed, I essentially asked for the community's help in doing just that. Arbcom doesn't have time to be investigators AND assessors of the facts. We really rely on the community to point us out where things are amiss, and then we mostly dig around to validate or reject those assertions, especially in huge cases like abortion. All sanctions can be appealed; topic bans, by demonstrating good editing and a learning of lessons in other areas, and site bans by going somewhere else and becoming a productive community member. Best wishes on your efforts to move forward, Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the initial run up to the case, and only had it brought to my attention some weeks after it started (by MastCell once he started citing diffs left, right and centre, indeed seemingly against nearly all editors except those who share a POV with him), I think the case needed and participants needed more reining in. Thats just an observation. By the time I was drawn into it, it had sprawled out to cover the whole topic (I had to present evidence). It started out from what I could gather over a dispute about article naming though. After being pulled in much of it seemed to do with articles I had no involvement in (ie. Support for..., Opposition to... articles). Apart from a couple of remarks I had otherwise no other comments on that dispute. Let that important political debate in the US run in appropriate venues and forums other than Wikipedia and it's talk pages, and not lay illegitimate claim to the pseudo-authority that Wikipedia sadly affords at times. You might think from this last comment that I don't have a position on the matter, but I do, and one of those articles would if this was a political debate forum give me opportunity to advance my views. As Wikipedia is not a political debate forum I object to both articles, and the using of Wikipedia to those ends, hence I never edited them. As there is an Abortion Debate article, a Abortion and Religion article, are not these other (Support for.../Opposition to...) articles unnecessarily going over that ground again? What else might we be opening up the the door to? There seems to be a collective missing of the point, though maybe arbitrators in private are aware of the topic-creep and the time it wastes. Undoubtedly mere involvement in these article is in itself no indicator of misusing the project. But I'd like to see something done about potentially polarising articles. The abortion debate cannot avoid being polarised at times, but we don't need to polarise editors. The existence of one nearly always leads to the setting up of another article by editors to counter it. This again is not necessarily motivated by any agenda or strategy, only that something akin to a cause-effect relationship seems to exist were neutrality and covering both sides is important. One article causes another to spring up (the effect). Which came first may not be all that important. But is this in Wikipedia's scope? I'd have thought the Abortion, Abortion Debate, Abortion in [country], Religion and Abortion type articles have a solid place, while Opposition to..., Support for... type articles don't.

By a recent estimate Wikipedia has 1600 times the number of articles on Britanicca. Might it be the the case that Britannica has about 1600 times less verbiage? I know you don't have any illusions about the percentage of articles which are useful. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the most general case, the question becomes how do we protect the encyclopedia from groups of editors who are dedicated to achieving their own goals at the expense of Wikipedia's pillars? People writing about their own little niche whatever-it-is don't cause problems: some of their articles are arcane and will never get much traffic, but they're mostly harmless. The nationalist, religious, and political POV warriors are a much bigger problem, in that they believe, in good faith in many cases, that their POV is NPOV. There's a difference between saying "Many people believe a fetus to be a distinct human being, and elective abortion a process that causes its death, while others disagree, noting that the developing fetus is dependent on the woman until viability" and "It's just a bunch of cells, you [expletive deleted]" or "abortion is murder". Gross oversimplifications, to be sure, but the people who aren't interested in writing the NPOV sentence aren't aligned with Wikipedia's goals, are they? Jclemens (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed obscure articles on tv shows and what-have-you is just there for the meantime (they don't cause disputes usually). The biggies are in the fields you noted. I was sore-wrought over how to neutrally cover abortion. One of the diffs cited against me was simply my attempt to get the POVs out on the carpet (so to speak). So I blew full steam to see what the response would be, but I had stated my POV earlier. It's not merely that there are POV editors who sincerely think they have no POV (that is true), however it is sadly my experience that there are POV editors who are adept at hiding their POV, rather than setting it aside, and its easy to see, when those editors are questioned there usually is an anguished chorus of other editors crying "how can you suggest such a thing about so and so." It is apparent in the way that certain organisations and sources are considered "superior", while the NPOV takes all sources at face value (at least initially) and assumes good faith towards statements of purpose of all organisations, permitting scope for a democratic diversity in sourcing within Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Some measures might be in order to avoid the potential for sprawl in cases like the one that has just finished. Perhaps allowing Arbcom to set the pace of the proceedings rather than parties, with invitations to respond to questions, but perhaps that is too much like a parliamentary select committee? But with allegations, interpretations and remedies being fired from all directions I think the proceedings favored the "experienced" editors, or at least those with substantial "experience" in Arbcom cases.DMSBel (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also food for thought: Following MastCell's comment to OM that fighting over an aspect of the lede was best left to the agenda driven editors, did he take his own advice and leave that discussion. What were those favoring the version which was reached by compromise and which had been stable "fighting" over? If this fighting over phrase was symtomatic of having an agenda, why were only myself and a few other editors being harangued.DMSBel (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I also think Jclemens did a good job, considering what he had to work with. The self-appointed prosecutor (not Jclemens), an admin, only presented evidence against one side in the debate and the pro-life side did not present evidence defending itself or present evidence of misconduct by the pro-choice partisans. The result is that 6 out of 8 editors singled out for ArbCom's kind ministrations are on one side of the debate. But, what is an Arb to do? Jclemens fairly begged people to present evidence in the form of diffs, and even asked for uninvolved volunteers to gather evidence (which got him criticized). Which brings up a question or two: does ArbCom decide the matter based mainly on the evidence provided by the involved parties? how much of its own research does it do? what are ArbCom's responsibilities when the evidence presented is one-sided and the side being accused doesn't defend itself or bring counter-charges? The pro-life editors did not have an articulate and organized champion like the pro-choice side did, and that resulted in a lopsided outcome, in my opinion. But, it's a difficult and time-consuming case, and Jclemens deserves thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a mistake to press all the parties involved into two sides. I consider myself pro-choice in the only sense I can understand the term, that is I don't believe that one person can make a choice for another, not in the sense of regarding all choices to be equally good, justified, well informed, or commendable in particular circumstances. Several of the editors sanctioned may have a moderate pro-life position but edited neutrally. One the editors sanctioned Michael C Price, only involvement was to point out logical fallacies in the arguments in the discussion without taking sides.

The more important question is not "does Arbcom decide the matter based mainly on the evidence provided by the involved parties.." for we know that bare evidence is rarely provided, it is usually interpreted by those providing it. So the question is does Arbcom base it's decisions solely on the interpretation of evidence provided? How does it assess for instance the interpretations of editing or talk page behaviour and decide whether parties are making mountains out of molehills? It would be good faith to assume (except when there is evidence to the contrary) those elected can weigh the evidence impartially (and the diffs presented in context), so that the allegations these diffs indicate disruptive or tendentious editing are also weighed to see whether they are fair, or overblown.

As I didn't seek the Arbcom case, I wasn't going to present a load of diffs, or get distracted from my editing by it. I was content to await request to answer questions from the arbiters if and when required. No questions were asked of me, so I summarised up the areas of the dispute as I understood them in my evidence, drawing attention a couple of times to particular aspects that seemed to me significant, and which I thought needed further investigation. I didn't present my own defense as that would be have been too time consuming for me and I thought the committee could weigh the evidence against me fairly. Following the results my level of confidence in the current committee is not at an all time high, though I don't lay all the responsibility with the drafters.

If it could be ascertained that the case has been a learning experience both for the arbitrators and parties involved (it has been for me) then that might help restore my confidence. DMSBel (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I shouldn't describe editors as pro-life just because they made edits that could be seen as "favoring" the pro-life side of the argument. I was going by my general impressions without going into it very deeply. I think what also influenced me in that impression was OrangeMarlin's "last gasp" (a few days before his imminent demise) in which he flamed several editors who later got "singled out" in this ArbCom decision, including you, right?

It's a shame that you are now prevented from editing the articles that interest you most, but no sanction is forever; in time, you'll be back editing them again. In retrospect, it may have been better if you had presented a vigorous defense and even gone on the attack. As I tried to say above, one conclusion that might be drawn from the decision is that "silence denotes consent" and that if you don't answer the charges against you, you'll probably get your rear end kicked.

I do hope that Jclemens finds time to address some of our issues here. Something tells me though that he's very busy in real life and also with the ArbCom voting. His suggestion for the lead of the Abortion article shows eminent common sense and that should give you some confidence in ArbCom (I mean, it does me.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I re-read OM's last gasp. You were the only one he flamed who was named later in this ArbCom decision. Michael Price is mentioned but not negatively if I'm reading it right. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to say a lot more here, as its not my talk page. My talk page behaviour at that article was at times remiss and some of the diffs showed that, I wasn't gonna argue that I had kept my cool at all times. Yes I agree that his comment about the lede show a lot of common sense, and that does help my confidence. A sort of feedback loop of bad-faith has been affecting that article and it needed broken, it would benefit from a fresh set of editors though, but not merely reducing it to like-minded editors, which tends to militate against NPOV. DMSBel (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You all are free to continue politely discussing things, including what I could or should have done better, here--no need to move off this talk page if that's where the conversation started. At the same time, I'm sometimes unclear about which issues are set for me to address--so, don't feel afraid to say "Hey, Jclemens, what about...?" and make it as explicit as possible what you'd like me to weigh in on. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jclemens. My impression of the case is that one side got "punished" more than the other because the "prosecuting" side presented most of the evidence and the other side didn't defend itself. So, my question to you is: what does ArbCom do when only one side presents evidence? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that it did, in fact, affect the outcome. There are a couple of ways ArbCom can deal with things:

• Just work on the presented evidence: quick, high likelihood of the best storyteller getting the most favorable outcome.
• Ask an uninvolved editor to look at diffs. In doing so, I've been accused of non-transparency, even if all the diffs used in the case were posted online with my commentary.
• Redo everything ourselves and present the evidence that we find. We run the risk of being accused of persecuting case participants, it takes forever to do, and even still, there's no guarantee that political considerations won't undermine the findings. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think approach #2 might have been useful if you'd picked truly uninvolved editors in good standing. Captain Occam (talk · contribs) has a troubled editing history, including ArbCom findings of tendentious agenda-driven editing, edit-warring, and attempting to game the system. He also has a history of animus toward several of the case parties. Arguably, approach #2 could work if the choice of "uninvolved" editor were made more carefully.

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)[reply]

To be honest, I think Captain Occam did a rather good and unbiased job. I didn't have to filter much out before I posted diffs (and that wasn't for ideological bias, but just for excessive thoroughness) which is part of the reason I set myself up to be that sort of filter. It also got him off his current dispute and focusing on something else, which I also considered a good outcome.

With respect to defense, I agree with you to a certain extent, MastCell, but I think we can agree that not every argument made was presented with equal effectiveness, and that you and NW had an edge at presenting camera-ready evidence.

I don't dispute that Wikipedia is an ideological battlefield to many, many people. If I could fix one thing about Wikipedia, it would be to get people to internalize NPOV: that every side deserves to have its best foot put forward, and the readers get to filter things through their own belief systems. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, my perspective on your presentation of the evidence is that it was one-sided. Please refresh my memory: which pro-choice editor did you present evidence against? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I outlined the criteria I used to identify problematic editing during the case, the last time someone tried to work this angle. I'll repeat my question, since it went notably unanswered last time: which other editors ("pro-choice" or not) do you think deserved sanction, and on what basis? What did I overlook, in my one-sidedness? I essentially asked people to put up or shut up on this last time it came up, and the response then was deafening silence. MastCell ^Talk 01:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a squealer, I'm not a prosecutor, and, unlike you, I've never heard the expression "It takes one to tango". I find it unlikely that only the pro-life partisans were misbehaving. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage you to take MastCell up on his offer, actually. Remember, as things are now under discretionary sanctions, evidence of past misbehavior may well be calculated in to future sanctions, even if the evidence wasn't brought forth in a timely enough manner for the case. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to edit disruptively. I've never really found those sorts of cliches useful - they're more like ways of avoiding thinking - but your mileage may vary. Sometimes, things that one finds unlikely turn out to be true. You never know unless you actually test your assumptions. Which is what I'm (again) inviting you to do. It's entirely possible I missed something, and if so, I'd like to know. MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. I won't be presenting evidence here, for the reasons I gave. What's ironic, MastCell, is that while you're distressed that some of us have a battlefield mentality and edit according to our beliefs, you are apparently unable to see how your own belief system influenced the one-sided way you prosecuted this arbitration. That kind of blindness is unfortunate in an admin. You know as well as I do that there were established edit-warriors involved on both sides. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. The time for presenting evidence is over. The lopsided result is more "justice half-done" than a "miscarriage of justice". It occurred because the system allowed two admins to prosecute the arbitration as though all the bad behavior was committed by one side in the controversy, which is absurd on its face. When analyzing a controversy, admins need to be held to a high standard of impartiality so that bad behavior on both sides is addressed. Editors in an arbitration should be allowed to be adversarial; admins, on the other hand, should be required to be completely impartial because they hold positions of authority and their higher level of expertise gives them power that ordinary editors do not have. Based on the evidence presented and the manner of its presentation, ArbCom was "constrained" to decide the case the way it did. --Kenatipo ^speak! 07:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And will I have to wait 3+ months again, or will you re-review it as soon as the feedback has been addressed? Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make sure that articles met the GA criteria before nominating, if you cannot recognise very poor prose then seek out someone to copy-edit. Then take it to peer review. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By agreeing to review the article, you agreed to use appropriate processes to do so, which are the basis on which I have a reasonable expectation of actionable feedback. Please articulate which of the quick fail criteria apply (hint: none do), provide a detailed review, or place the article back in the queue so someone else can review it who will actually do a detailed review. Thanks, Jclemens-public (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree with you, that shouldn't have been a quick fail. Sure, the prose is pretty ropey in places, but that can be easily fixed within the span of the customary 7-day holding period. I'm afraid that you may have fallen foul of the latest drive to reduce the GAN backlog. We can't do much about the failed review, that's done and dusted, but if you re-nominate at GAN then I'll pick up the review. It may still end up not being listed, but at the very least I'll give you something to work on. I don't watch the GA nominations, so if you decide to go down that path then let me know on my talk page. On the other hand I can be a rather demanding reviewer, so you may prefer someone else; I just thought I'd offer to help. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Malleus. I would be pleased to have you as a reviewer: I'm relatively certain I've not reviewed any GAs for you or vice versa, but word on the street is that you excel at it. Would you mind if I actually delayed taking you up on this for until I get back from a short trip and I can make sure ArbCom election drama has died down a bit, so I can actually fix some things both before and after the review? Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, there's no rush. Just let me know when you're ready to rock and roll. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will be a couple of days now... I've just gotten one passed, and one more currently on review. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The deal with that is that sanctions apply to people, not to accounts, so you'd still be under sanctions, even in your new account, until they expire or are lifted. I also need to check if the procedures for doing so have been updated recently, because I know a discussion on the topic was ongoing a couple of months ago. Let me know if this is something you want to pursue--and email is fine for this sort of discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes I was aware the sanctions would still be applicable to a new account or username. I'll let you know before I do anything. DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username is no big deal. On the other hand, in regard to starting over with a new account, Wikipedia policy currently states: "A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against your old account." MastCell ^Talk 05:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the link.DMSBel (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth asking what the user understands by a clean start. Does xhe accept that it includes leaving behind previously edited topics, particularly wp:BATTLEGROUNDs? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always a good reminder, but given the change in tone of his contributions on this page, vs. his initial response to the case, I think this participant is aware of that and looking for an opportunity to make a positive change. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I will do this when I get to a secure computer in 10-12 hours, but you may get faster service from WP:REFUND, or an admin TPS may get to this faster. Be sure to update the content, as the article appears to have been deleted a good while ago. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! No hurry!Danieljameshill (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there published reliable sources upon which to draw? A cursory Gillian Howie (philosopher) doesn't show any, though there are many publisher bioblurbs, etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bunch of Google News hits for her, although I'd used "Liverpool" rather than "philosopher" as a secondary search term. At any rate, the bio's back, and I threw in an EL to her faculty page, just to keep the restored PROD from being an unreferenced BLP. It still needs work. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me, but I am not particularly familiar with the topic and have zero knowledge of Arabic. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [1] [2] [3]

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. [4] [5] [6] [7] 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)[reply]

Sure, I have my own ideas, but you might want to ask some of the ArbCom members who voted against the finding of fact or sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have a clear understanding of how ArbCom feels about this issue in general. I’m hoping that the only reason any arbitrators voted against the finding of fact was because of OrangeMarlin’s inability to participate in the case, but I can’t tell whether some of them might have a different attitude from you about incivility in general. The reason I asked you is because you’re the one person who I know agrees that this sort of incivility shouldn’t be overlooked, so I figured you were the most likely to have ideas what should be done about it.

If you think I should get the opinions of other arbitrators, what’s the best way to do that? If you think I should post about this on several in their talk pages, I’d also appreciate it if you could suggest which specific arbitrators whom I should contact about it. (I’m assuming I shouldn’t make a massive cross-posting to the user talk of every member of ArbCom.) --Captain Occam (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was my job to point out everyone's incivility in the Abortion case. That's now over, so my specific responsibility is as well. Contrary to several people's opinion, (including, apparently, his own) I really don't care about Orangemarlin. He's been incivil, violated NPA flagrantly, repeatedly, and without remorse, but my opinion that regardless of his health or lack thereof, his conduct has been incompatible with our civility pillar has not swayed the committee. If any of those who deferred the findings of fact or sanctions cared, they are perfectly capable of bringing it up on their own. You could file a request for clarification, I suppose. Feel free to skip Arbcom, since the recent behavior is mostly independent of the case, and report him to WP:ANI and see what happens, if you like. I've said my peace, and either he will change, or someday someone will block him. It's not my place to fret over the situation, else being an arb would be completely impossible! Jclemens-public (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the advice. I have one other question about this: what sort of sanction is most typical in response to someone being persistently uncivil across a wide range of articles? Since the incivility isn’t confined to a single topic area, it doesn’t seem like a topic ban would resolve it. In this sort of situation is the only effective remedy a site-ban, or is there a lesser sanction that’s commonly used when this happens? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think civility is one of the most inconsistently applied areas of administrator intervention and other corrective action. I'm not sure that there is a really good answer to your question. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone else has brought up OrangeMarlin's incivility on AN/I already, here. Since I don’t entirely understand what ArbCom intended with their remedy for him in the abortion case, I’m not able to say whether his recent behavior is or isn’t consistent with that. But if you have an opinion about this, it might be worthwhile for you to comment there. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the discussion, thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll give it another pass tonight. I think I spotted one typo, and I can go through and try and trim the guest star list a bit more. Thanks for all the work you've put into helping me improve this article. Jclemens-public (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed, congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your work--and patience--with me on this. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does numerical representation[8] 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)[reply]

I think he was merely making a comparison. The "arguments" at DRV were mostly merely AFD pt 2, which is not permitted. There was no consensus to change the AFD based on policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking bullshit. (I am strongly moved, and argument based on policy demonstrably counts for nothing.) The DRV is inconsistent with the original Afd, where a near even split of sentiments was claimed as consensus, and a minority opinion selected as the supposed conensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel the wording of your post above will impress many people? (especially Mr. Clemens?) Collect (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that no one has taken my strong language as any kind of personal admonition. What I generally try to impress people with is careful analysis of views, clarity of argument, a solid foundation, and a willingness to engage in reasonable debate. And even a willingness to accept the views of others when they prove superior. But when there is a constant misinterpretation of facts and misstatements of the views of others, when the attempt at reasoned debate is trumped by the factually incorrect personal opinions of the admin (I refer here to the Afd), when what I value and would impress people with counts for nothing, then I see little point in trying to impress anyone beyond a strong dissent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got pretty thick skin. I do suggest avoiding exasperated language in general, though, because it doesn't tend to accomplish much. I hope my suggestions for how to proceed are helpful. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely in disagreement with that (that it was to some extent AfDv.2). But that doesn't moot my question here - does it? Numerical representations are not what should determine an AfD - or a DRV... Correct? I'm still waiting for an explanation based upon the merits of the arguments - and not simply a "i can't find the numbers to say something" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The DRV was closed as no consensus. That seems reasonable, given the divided opinions, but is not an endorsement of the close and so it didn't settle anything. As the article was not deleted, the matter is now open to further ordinary editing in which editors may continue to explore the various options and sources for these topics per WP:BRD, right? Notice how the RfC for Yogurt/Yoghurt was immediately refought and reversed. Why would this case be any different? If the Keep camp was strongest, as it appeared, then they might press the point, eh? But what of the general arbcom sanctions on the Climate Change topic? Please advise... Warden (talk)

The way *I* would suggest going forward, if you want to restore the information to a separate article, is to put so much relevant, reliably sourced information on the term into the target article that people are complaining that it's unbalanced. Then, you have a great case for splitting it back into its own article again. Nothing is being deleted, the term is just being covered as a topic within an article rather than its own article. While I would not have closed a closely contested AfD as anything other than "no consensus, default to keep", the fact is that at DRV, that same approach yields "no consensus, default to endorse". There was neither a numerical or overwhelming policy reason to undo a merge, and yet there was not an overwhelming consensus that the merge was proper, so "no consensus" is my read of the DRV results. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy reason, per WP:DELREV, is that "the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". That is a point that could be examined as a factual issue, independently of which side can yell loudest. But where you look at only the numerical count of opinions, and the DRV is essentially a rehash of the AfD, with the same players, why would you expect a different result? By the same reasoning where you declared "no consensus" in the DRV, the AfD was also "no consensus". That is a misinterpretation, that effectively inverts policy and makes a mockery of consensus. But so what? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so in the DRV, all I evaluated is as the closer was "did consensus say that the AfD was closed improperly?" And there was no consensus there that the debate was closed improperly. There were roughly split opinions, without either numerical or argumentation superiority, such that "no consensus" was the result. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revered again, eh? Friendly bit of advice, here: While WP:BRD is simply labeled as a "best practice", once someone has initially reverted you on a change to a major policy or process page (no matter how minor and correct you believe your change to be), then you're almost certainly going to be reverted a second time if you undo the reversion, so you might as well start the discussion after the first reversion.

On the specifics of this case: All our peculiar capitalizations are just that: peculiar capitalizations. Since AfD, RfA, etc. are all acronyms, the more standard English way of writing them would be R.F.D., etc. to the best of my recollection. But since periods have been being dropped silently from acronyms for years, then the full caps RFD, etc. would probably be more in line with mainstream usage. Having said that, my motivation for reverting you has nothing to do with my opinion on which capitalization is proper, but rather serves to highlight the distinction between "deletion" discussions and "discussion" discussions. As you may or may not know, I am one of the vocal minority who believes that AfD should migrate from deletion to discussion. Consensus has not favored that in the past, but the topic was raised again and is currently being bantered about (calling it a formal change proposal would be incorrect) on the WT:AFD talk page currently. As such, I would like the stylistic differences to remain as long as the semantic differences do. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		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 ©hatontributions 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. If indeed only the entrenched core of voters who are distressed at someone else "threatening" their right to ignore the civility pillar voted, I expect I will be out of my ArbCom job pretty soon. But I've got real hope that the electorate will have seen through the manufactured objections to the real motivations behind those who opposed my reelection... Jclemens-public (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]