Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:47, 21 December 2011

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-Misplaced Pages 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:

Your GA nomination of The Wolf and the Lion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, Malleus, it's been re-nom'ed and I've started poking about working on things that other reviewers have commented on with respect to other articles in the series. Your input is welcome at any time. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them - read all the damn books and watched the miniseries...and if GRRM takes another five years to write the next one, I will be.........very.......unhappy......Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 20 December 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)

Thank you. Yes, there is a challenge with respect to sourcing, which I had been planning on standardizing a good bit more throughout the process. I'll be able to address this feedback a little later on today, I believe. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

When do the election results get published?

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 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Oh, and as far as how soon we'll know? Your guess is as good as mine. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just read the exchange between KieferWolfowitz and skomorohk on the ArbCom election page and understand it could take up to 5 days! We're spoiled here in the Old Dominion—in a state-wide election involving millions of votes, we know within a few hours of the polls closing what the results are. (Maybe all the computer geeks swarming around Misplaced Pages make tampering more likely!) --Kenatipo 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the results are in, and I'll finish out a second year on ArbCom. Given the rather vocal opposition I got from some well-traffic'ed guide writers, WMC supporters, and OM supporters, I'm pleased that my support numbers actually increased vs. last election. My thanks to those who believe I'm articulating a better path for Misplaced Pages for placing your trust and votes in my reelection; I would not have this chance to serve without the iceberg of support that has overcome the negative campaigning against me. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations - I hope my bullet-vote helped <g>. Collect (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This was very well said

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:

• Editors are responsible for their own editing. Inebriation, emotionally disturbance, overly tired, mental incompetence, physical pain, or dying; none of these external circumstances absolve an editor from the responsibility to edit with civility.

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)

If all of that is true, then presumably the countries where it's possible to get drunk legally while under 18, must be the perfect storm of incivility! That'd be Austria, Cyprus, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Georgia, Cambodia, Jamaica, Haiti, Sudan and Morocco. Strangely though, I'd never noticed an incivility problem from those countries in particular :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:19, 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)

I've been told by one other ArbCom member that I ought to write something similar. I'll probably re-articulate these in more general terms in an essay. Jclemens (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages standards should remain constant regardless of real life factors affecting editors. However, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Orangemarlin_instructed was a Solomon like response.

Captain Occam's notification to ArbCom 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 ], specifically This might sound overly cynical of me, but it seems like a strange coincidence that after being absent from Misplaced Pages 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)

Gerard, thank you for taking the time to think through and write a considered response to the situation. I do not think I have been previously asked to comment on Captain Occam's recent conduct. In case anyone reviewing the archives hasn't seen my comments to his posts here, it appears that he didn't take the hints to drop the stick and back away from the dispute. It is always a bit sad when an established editor is indef'ed, but in his case, it appears to be every bit as justified as Orangemarlin's indef is. While I initially asked him to help me out in order to distract him from his dispute with Mathsci, it appears that he became too invested in the dispute, trying to "win" it even when the case had been closed. Sure, anyone with a brain cell can make the same observation about Orangemarlin's timing... but the whole point about Orangemarlin is that he lacks appropriate self control. To posit that he stayed off to avoid sanctions (which weren't close to passing by any reading), but yet returned immediately afterwards to behave as incivilly as before... requires him to have, and not have, self control. ABF notwithstanding, this is not the 1980's Infocom Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy text adventure game (where one must have both "tea" and "no tea" to win).

With respect to the cultural sensitivity bit, I tend to agree. I think the real balance lies somewhere between accepting every excuse (the de facto status quo), and accepting none. If I had my way, I would indeed have had Orangemarlin blocked well before he could have convinced everyone who didn't already know him that he's irredeemably incivil... but as a preventative/corrective, rather than punitive, matter. But that isn't really possible in a polarized environment where people defend their friends against legitimate complaints, making excuses for unacceptable conduct. There are probably three or more editors whose defense of Orangemarlin essentially prolonged and exacerbated the problem, when they should have been counseling Orangemarlin to behave in an appropriately civil manner. Now, whatever apology he makes is going to be seen by all sorts of people who have decided to watch the train wreck. That's not going to be easy on his pride, I don't imagine. As I've said before, elsewhere in other contexts, it's the duty of friends to "talk down" those who are wrong. Several folks have done that for me over the years. For example, I've learned that if DGG ever tells me I'm off base... I really need to reexamine what I'm doing or saying. Paradoxically, those who sought to preserve Orangemarlin may well have worsened the problem.

How, specifically, do you think I should have handled things more optimally, given the background of the situation? Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Consistent with my new user name, let me ponder that for a bit before I get back to you. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:51, 15 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

This unfairly mischaracterizes what the rest of the committee was saying. The language here is a little too emotional (saddens me); As you note, Misplaced Pages dispute resolution is not a judicial proceeding, so using legal terminology such as guilty or moral authority are best avoided. Alternate wording, such as

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

That's another reasoned, fair assessment. While the revisions don't sound like me, I certainly could have said something more along those lines. You've accurately highlighted the most frustrated of my posts on the topic, as well.

In the future, how could I better get across the point that I think on-wiki behavior must be considered in isolation, that I can wish Orangemarlin (or whomever else, he's not the first case we've dealt with in my year as an arb) a speedy recovery at the same time blocking him until he can behave in a manner consistent with wikipedia expectations? I don't appear to have communicated that effectively, and saying "it doesn't matter" and "I don't care" in various ways just seems to have incensed those who think it does matter and I should care. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The examples were meant to be illustrative, not prescriptive.

I'd suggest something like 'While wishing editor (a speed recovery, makes bail, Mom restores PC access), I think on-wiki behavior must be considered in isolation and therefore support (sanction); editor X is encourage to contact the committee upon their return to present their viewpoint, at which point sanctions will be reviewed by the committee.' Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, @Jclemens: The way you expressed that just now is fine. Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with your position on Orangemarlin (I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it as a reasonable perspective on the situation). The problem was with Captain Occam's insinuation that Orangemarlin was manipulating his illness, and your (witting or unwitting) amplification of his insinuation.

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  19:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intent to amplify Occam's statements. While we've had editors lie to ArbCom about their health status repeatedly, there was no particular reason to doubt Orangemarlin's status. I guess I see how a non-denouncement may have come across as support for it, but I had no reason to accept or reject Orangemarlin's status--AGF'ing on my part doesn't extend to saying "I believe you" to unverifiable statements made by strangers. I don't do that to people who are spinning fanciful tales to me in the exam room, either. I seriously had a guy tell me he got parallel lacerations on his penis by tripping, running into a door, and siding down to the ground while he had been walking around his house nude. Suuure.... no bruises, no other cuts anywhere, just 2 lacerations perpendicular to the long axis. Even though the story I was given didn't remotely mesh the facts, I just said "Oh, how unfortunate" and carefully sutured his lacerated skin. It wasn't my job to comment on his claims, just to fix the problem that had presented itself. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

CSD proposal

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)

Fundamentally, I think it's too nuanced to be a CSD criterion. Three separate prongs? The multipronged extant CSD criteria are often not applied correctly. I think your motives are good, but documenting these at WP:OUTCOMES may be a more reasonable effort than adding a whole new CSD criterion. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on another term to ArbCom. Or maybe I should say, sorry you have deal with all the troubles of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Thanks for your dedicated support of our project. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jclemens. --Kenatipo 00:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And me. Well done Jc. Good work in the past and good luck for the future and many thanks for your contributions. Youreallycan (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. I was clearly very wrong about you last year and I supported your candidacy this year. In fact, the only reason I voted this year was to correct that mistake. Good luck. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'm humbled. What's one thing that I did that exceeded (or reversed) your expectations? Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to say this. However, since you're asking I thought you did very well on the abortion case and not least defended yourself well without bowing under pressure (and I'm quite sure I'm not the only editor who silently agrees with that). That got me curious so I looked at your votes in the Manipulation of BLPs case and I saw nothing that warranted my concerns last year. Those two things combined changed my mind. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know shit about ArbCom except the little that I learned (and more that confused me) on this Abortion case. The whole thing seems like a muckymuck affair, and I just hope that what happened with Abortion isn't typical. Having said that, one of the few things I picked up on was that you were having to hold your ground against greater numbers of Arbicommers, and as the editor above noted, you acquitted yourself quite well. I'm glad you were there for the whole matter. I don't really understand the significance of the decision—didn't seem like much of anything changed—but I'm glad that someone was there saying things that made sense to me, and that was you. Congrats and, more importantly, thank you for standing again. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1RR

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)

Hrm. I would go ahead and behave as if they still were, but that's just me: I behave as if the entire encyclopedia is 1RR the vast majority of the time. I know the wording that passed wasn't the original proposal, but unless we explicitly say we're taking away a community remedy, assume that we're not. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)