| Revision as of 20:04, 12 December 2013 editJclemens-public (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,932 edits →Blocked: r +unblock request (no template, I expect enough admins watch here it will be seen)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:16, 24 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Jclemens/Archive 15) (bot | ||
| (935 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 15 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jclemens/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Jclemens/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archivebox|auto=yes}} | {{archivebox|auto=yes}} | ||
| I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at ] | |||
| {{User:Jclemens/icons}} | |||
| '''Welcome, correspondents.''' <br /> | |||
| '''If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please ]''' and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary. | |||
| <br>'''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 or oversighter in individual matters is currently limited by my 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... | '''Position Essays''' may help you understand my point of view with regard to... | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| == Merry Christmas! == | |||
| '''Administrator Goals''' | |||
| Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:<br> | |||
| ] | |||
| == Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote == | |||
| Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at ]. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at ]. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, ] | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:TParis@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/User:TParis/SecurePoll/List --> | |||
| == GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive == | |||
| {| {{WP:WikiProject Good articles/Shell|introduction=Hello! A ] will begin in less than 4 days!<br/> | |||
| In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate '''per review'''. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.<br/> | |||
| At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.</br> | |||
| If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the ]. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--] (]) 03:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC) }} | |||
| |} | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0669 --> | |||
| == Mateo Roskam - restore? == | |||
| Hi! | |||
| I see that you deleted, quite rightly and deservedly, the article for Mateo Roskam, a Croatian football (soccer) player, in 2009. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Mateo_Roskam | |||
| He has, however, become eligible for inclusion in 2013, playing for a club in a fully professional league (Slaven Belupo in the Croatian Prva HNL) -> http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/mateo-roskam/leistungsdaten/spieler_46790.html (for example), and I thought it would be cool if the article was restored - I'd update it immediately with relevant data. | |||
| Thank you for your help! | |||
| ] (]) 17:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] has been restored. Please improve it with the new information. Cheers, ] (]) 22:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion on an old AfD == | |||
| Hi, ] concerns a remark you made in an AfD that I closed almost a month ago. Just a heads up. Cheers! --] (]) 08:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, it doesn't--Flatscan just wants to believe it does. Flatscan has a habit of 1) continuing closed discussions, 2) at a glacial (one reply per week or so) page, and 3) assuming that when people get tired of talking to him, that that constitutes proof that he is correct. I'd encourage you to just ignore his post entirely as if it were a ] issue: even if his assertions were true, there's no outcome that would be changed by accepting them. Thus, discussing the merits of his arguments is entirely elective, and something I do not plan to engage in. Cheers, ] (]) 09:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == categorizations == | |||
| I think the edit history may be mentioned without further comment? I can not raise anything specific even at BLP/N as I understand it, hence and only am noting the ''aggregate contribution history''. Cheers. ] (]) 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive == | |||
| {| {{WP:WikiProject Good articles/Shell|introduction=Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the ] has begun and will end on December 31, 2013!<br/> | |||
| If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive!</br> | |||
| If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them ]--] (]) 00:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| }}|} | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0671 --> | |||
| == IAR a DRV? == | |||
| That Earl DRV saw 6 endorses and 4 overturns, you can't just toss that aside in favor of your own opinion on the matter. We don't promote people to the admin corps to make decisions for us, we promote you to act according to the consensus of the community. Or in the brief 2 days this DRV was open, a lack thereof. This will get ugly if you don't have a change of heart; re-delete the article and allow the DRV to run its course, please. ] (]) 02:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for addressing the request so politely, Tarc. I know we've disagreed over deletion matters over the years, but I do not take this action lightly. The point of IAR is to improve the encyclopedia when the 'rules' answer is clearly the wrong one, and that's precisely why I've done what I've did. Mr. Earl has been covered in numerous reliable sources over the years, and not in an unreasonably negative or exploitative way. His BLP is quite well sourced and reflects NPOV within the scope of what I saw when personally verifying the contents of the reliable sources. Its retention is completely in line with our pillars, and its absence, even if temporary, lessens the encyclopedia. It's not a debatable matter, like fictional elements are, where good people can differ. His life and arrest record are a recurrent news matter, covered in the highest quality of news sources. The interpretations of various BLP or EVENT policies that would support a deletion are sufficiently without merit that the IAR close and restoration were justified. I get that some people want to make BLP trump encyclopedic coverage, but that's not a pillar-supported priority. Jimbo's take on BLP is that we have to get it right--but sometimes, getting it right means reporting the negative things that RS'es do. Cheers, ] (]) 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's all well and good, but that isn't a valid rationale to toss a dozen-odd editor's input and sub in your own; you should have entered in a vote/opinion to overturn. I kinda swore off ANI and haven't even taken a peek at it in months, but I think this action may need to go up for review. ] (]) 04:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really think you should re-open the DRV and let it run the full seven days. Your rationale would make a fine contribution to the DRV, but I'm very uncomfortable with shutting down the discussion somewhat prematurely like this. ] (]) 05:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You both realize that the ''status quo'' before I corrected things was that Mr. Earl's name redirected to a completely different and entirely unrelated individual. That both sends readers to a completely different result, but it also denies Mr. Earl the publicity of Misplaced Pages, which might actually hamper Mr. Earl from receiving compassionate contributions, which are highest in the United States during this season of the year. In fact, the possibility of harm to Mr. Earl is at least as significant that I believe that in addition to my initially stated rationale, special BLP measures apply per ]. Cheers, ] (]) 05:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I would hate to stop someone from having a happy holiday season--that's certainly not my intent. ] (]) 06:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Of course it wasn't your intent--while I have taken issue with the arguments, closing, and now with one other admin's conduct, IAR closure is designed to be a panic-stop and call to reexamine the outcome in the light of the pillars. Doing so when I bore any personal animus against any other involved party would undermine the appropriateness of my action, and I continue to AGF that while people may be wrong, I have seen no evidence that anyone is intentionally misbehaving. Mr. Earl is not a well human being, but the fact is that whatever harm might befall him from ] is far outbalanced by the fact that only public attention on the poor man's plight will get him any help--his notoriety, as covered by plenty of reliable sources over many years and reflected in his Misplaced Pages article, is the only way Misplaced Pages can actually ''help'' him, by drawing interested persons to his aide. This is ''exactly'' the opposite of the BLP arguments which were brought forward and uncritically endorsed. We're so used to BLP being used as an excuse to ''delete'' things, that in this process, no one ever stopped and said "Wait, could this actually be helping Mr. Earl?" ] (]) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I'm placing it in the hands of the ] folk to decide. I just can't abide unilateral moves like this. ] (]) 06:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] IAR is a pillar, and is of necessity and by definition unilateral. Feel free to seek to change it if you like. ] (]) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Note: I've edited Tarc's comment above to Wikilink the ANI discussion he opened, for ease of navigation. ] (]) 08:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| (e/c): Hi Jclemens. I have undone your out-of-process close of the DRV. I understand that you are passionate about this, but it is not appropriate to short-circuit our review processes in such a manner. If you are right that my AfD close was incorrect, I am sure you will be able to persuade the other DRV participants of that, and a neutral editor will close the DRV accordingly. Please note that I have not re-deleted the article (and I will not) because, as you say, that could be interpreted as wheel-warring. At the end of the 7 days, the closer will either re-delete or keep restored the article as appropriate. Let's just both be patient and let the DRV run its course. ] (]) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You're going to call '''''my''''' actions out-of-process, but then undo a close of a DRV on an AfD that ''you'' decided? That's... stunningly inappropriate. ] (]) 07:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry to pile on here, but I think your use of ] is quite dubious. My understanding is that BLP spec is to ensure that articles are compliant with the BLP policy. And there is nothing in there about keeping an article because the presence of the article might earn the subject money. In fact I think this is somewhat opposed to Misplaced Pages's purpose, which is to document notable people/companies/etc not a place to ] people. Also ] states that articles should be blanked, rather than the decision be completely reversed. Anyway, interested in your reasoning. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Not documenting a notable person deprives them of exposure; my reasoning clearly asserts that is directly harmful to do so in this case. This is not about promoting anyone, and certainly not about inappropriate puffery intended to portray the subject in an undeservedly positive light. No one said anything about Mr. Earl "earning" money--I spoke specifically to charitable contributions, which peak at this time of the year, and which can reasonably expected to be curtailed if his Misplaced Pages article is suppressed. The article in question was not "temporarily" undeleted--I restored it when I ''closed'' the DRV. An involved administrator has reopened the DRV, but wisely chose not to re-delete the article as that would have been wheel warring. You are entitled to disagree with the appropriateness of BLP enforcement... but BLP enforcement is not subject to consensus. ] (]) 09:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The rationale is still your opinion that the person is notable, which will be promoting him (in terms of his online profile) in order for him to receive donations. So in 5 or so days when the DRV is closed, if it's closed as endorse deletion, will you withdraw the special enforcement and allow the consensus to take precedence? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::All BLP special enforcement is opinion, under your criterion, and essentially on the same footing; that's why admins are entrusted with it, because we're expected to have the policy knowledge and track record to do it appropriately. The thing that I've changed by invoking special BLP enforcement, however, is that in order for the article to be re-deleted, a consensus ''to delete'' must exist--that is, we're no longer talking about a no-consensus close endorsing an AfD deletion. I guess it could technically do that, but then we have the AfD close restored by a DRV no consensus, but the special BLP enforcement left in place by that same no-consensus, which trumps the AfD. All this assumes that 28bytes' out-of-process reopening of my IAR close isn't undone as a violation of ], of course. Suffice it to say that there may be plenty more outcomes that I can't foresee, and speculating further is probably unhelpful. ] (]) 09:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regarding, "not documenting a notable person deprives them of exposure...", couldn't that effectively short-circuit ''any'' attempt to delete a BLP article up for discussion? Look at this from outside of the point-of-view of just the Henry Earl article, you need to consider the consequences of the things you do via the admin bit, as they can be cited as precedent by others down the road. I'd also consider the fact that your words could be construed as a support of the Misplaced Pages being used as an advertising/PR/promotional platform for article subjects. Is that why we're doing all this? ] (]) 14:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It could indeed, Tarc, which is why I think the fact that Mr. Earl has been documented multiple times, over a decade or so, in US and international reliable sources. ''That'' is why this case is different than the run-of-the-mill promotional articles: because our normal notability rules would have deleted him if it were otherwise, and would delete the hypothetical other article you posit. ] (]) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| Do not do this again. Your invocation of BLPBAN has been found to be frivolous, by a clear and active consensus of uninvolved observers at ], and I – as an uninvolved administrator – have therefore formally marked it as overturned. As your BLP invocation has been found invalid, you are at this point neither entitled to hand out further "warnings" in this matter, nor to edit-war and invoke 3RR exemptions on the article. If you continue to edit against consensus in this matter, it will very likely end in you being blocked, and if you continue to abuse your admin role in the same way, it will end in your being desysoped. ] ] 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've cross-warned you at your talk page. ANI hasn't "found" anything, despite your insistence that it do. Regardless, thanks for striking, rather than deleting, the BLPBAN log entry you objected to. I'd really rather no one block anyone here, and but the fact is my assertion of harm on the basis of deletion ''or blanking'' is real, material, not frivolous, and not raised in bad faith. Regardless, I have to go to work, so I'm certainly not going to be doing anything to the article in the next ~12+ hours--I can't stop you from blanking it again, but I can tell you that you're wrong on both policy and ethical bases if you do so. Cheers, ] (]) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Saying that deletion would "deprive him of charitable contributions" means that you want it kept to advertise his charity. Violation of ] (your supervote), ] and probably ]. ] (]) 17:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) is wishing you a ] ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! <br /> | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{]:]}} to their talk page with a friendly message. | |||
| You have been blocked for 24 hours due to a growing consensus on ANI that your recent actions have constituted a disruprive abuse of adminship, as well as a seeming to admit the problem and a seeming likelihood for the problem to reoccur. A discussion is underway regarding your suitability to continue to hold admin privileges. If you wish to be unblocked to take part in this discussion, this can be done provided you agree not to return to the issues which have caused this block. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <small>I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :)</small> ] (]) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Further. Whether some agree or not JCelemens is reasonable and is listening and is responding in a calm and thoughtful way. This block appears to be punitive .(] (]) 18:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| :::Not punitive, he's been editing disruptively, this is preventative. ] (]) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Preventative of what? What action(s) do you believe Jclemens would have done during the 24 hour period of this block had he not been blocked? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 18:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::More supervoting, owning and advertising. ] (]) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That's an unfortunate choice. I haven't the time to read the ANI, nor the ability to log in from my own computer for another 6+ hours. It would be nice if a sensible administrator unblocked me between now and then, so I can start drafting an arbitration request. I have only ever used the tools in good faith; had I been interested in drama-mongering and escalating, I could have blocked FPaS for his premature actions ''contra'' the Special BLP enforcement I invoked. I am not, and did not. Blocking me--or anyone, for that matter--violates the collegiality expected of administrators and is a horrible way to move forward on the matter. | |||
| :The result of the AfD is still objectively unreasonable and should not stand; the deletion of Mr. Earl's page serves to harm him by obscuring public awareness of the notable individual's plight; and I expect that an arbitration committee well versed in BLP matters will find that I have acted within their designated remit, while the other administrators involved have not. ] (]) 20:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:16, 24 December 2024
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND
Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...
Merry Christmas!
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)