Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jclemens (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 18 December 2011 (→When do the election results get published?: ty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

It's pouring thrones

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)

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)

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

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

Closing of DRV(climate change alarmism)

What exactly does numerical representation 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

		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 ©ontributions 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 12 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)

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)

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)