Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 31 July 2012

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:

The Legend of Korra organization RfC

Hi, I'm contacting you becaused you expressed an opinion in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Korra (Book 2). Because it appears likely that the AfD will not end with deletion, I've set up a request for comment (RfC) on the talk page of the article about the series about how to organize the topic into subarticles. If you are interested, I'd appreciate it if you would add your opinion in that RfC. Regards,  Sandstein  06:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm a bit too busy to contribute this week. For anyone watching here, my general thoughts on notable fictional franchises are that 1) All former articles should end up being redirects, so no one ever finds a dead link externally and 2) All appropriate content should end up in articles of reasonable size which are logically organized. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A TPS offer...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casting Crowns (album)/GA1

I fixed the two issues noted; I honestly thought there would be something I missed, particularly since I tried a different heading organization on this one. I spent a couple weeks working on it in my sandbox but I thought I would have missed something.

As for reception, I was surprised at just how positively it was received at the time of release - I knew it was well-received critically, but debut albums rarely get nearly unanimously positive reviews and Casting Crowns gets a lot of critique nowadays for their sound. Toa Nidhiki05 10:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

GA doesn't mean perfect, it means GOOD. :-) Seriously, one of the enemies of the GA process is scope creep. Things don't need to be impeccable or impossible to improve to be a GA: if you want to try for an FA without previous feedback... THAT would be an awesome feat. Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so. I enjoy collaboration but there are very few editors in my primary topic area.

Even still, I thought the Casting Crowns article has FA potential but I wanted to do GA and peer review first, at least to work out any kinks in the article. Plus, I'm in WikiCup and I desperately need the GA points. I might not be able to nominate it for a while since an article I had been pushing for FA failed due to lack of discussion, so I'd have to wait to nominate this one even though it is in very, very good shape. Toa Nidhiki05 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked

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

• "To whom are you addressing that last?"

Here's my response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait a second, RexxS

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

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

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

For your collection

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

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

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

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

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

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

Pathfinder Bestiaries

Hi Jclemens,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Inappropriate personal attack

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

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

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

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

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