User talk:Jclemens

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Wikipedia obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

I don't understand your reasoning here...

In your vote on WMC's request here, it would be helpful if you could clarify your reasoning. It looks like you're punishing WMC because you dislike the behaviour of other parties to the case (and other individuals who have commented on his request, or who are involved in the topic area); I hope that that wasn't your intent, but it is difficult to read your "group of people" and "public tug-of-war" comments any other way.

You also wrote about "lifting sanctions" (actually, just a reduction) sending "a particularly bad message". Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? WMC was sanctioned by the ArbCom. After he has spent nearly a year without causing trouble, and continued to contribute extensively and positively to the project, he has asked for another chance to edit in an area where he has personal expertise, with the awareness that his conduct will be closely monitored. This is not an instance where a troublemaker has been subject to multiple topic bans and returned to disrupt the project after the expiry of each. Is "the ArbCom admits that it is possible for editors to reform their behaviour" really such a terrible message? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

*ping* I'm not sure if you saw that I had left this message; I'm still hoping you'll take the time to clarify, elaborate on, or revise your comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Though the motion has been resolved, I was still hoping you might elaborate on your reasoning...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think my inquiry may once again be timely, as the ArbCom has been asked to consider a related motion, and it is not unlikely that a number of similar requests might be forthcoming. I think it would be helpful for you to illuminate for me and for the community the factors that you weighed in reaching the decision on the motion concerning WMC, and how those might apply more broadly to other applicants seeking to have their topic bans modified or lifted. In particular, I hope you could touch on how you use the conduct of other editors (editors other than the one seeking relief from a remedy) to guide your decision-making, as well as what sort of "messages" the ArbCom ought to be sending to the individuals seeking a loosening of a restriction (as well as to the broader community). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse

I found it a little troubling that you scolded RAP for his incivility, but let the comments by others pass, especially given that Moni3 at one point went so far as to say "fuck civility". I've been trying to keep the conversation on-point and the tone moderate, but frankly as far as I'm concerned at least three of the contributors there have behaved somewhat inappropriately; I don't think it's prudent to scold one while letting the others' comments pass. Doniago (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Really?

I'm surprised you only put Rusted AutoParts on notice here. Moni's behavior is terrible, why have you ignored it? I left her a warning.--v/r - TP 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it was. I considered making it mutual, but decided against it. One of the nice thing about putting someone "on notice" is that it also removes me from actually having to block anyone, though. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AdminHelp - Is this thing on?. Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a lot of text. I don't see any reason to pop in there, but if anyone has a question they'd like me to answer, I'm available. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No idea (wasn't really following it, and not involved in it at all)... I just noticed people weren't notified, suggested it there, and SandyGeorgia and I went about notifying those who were not. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of amusing, actually, that an offhanded "shape up!" remark generated that much interest, and that no one prior to you had even bothered to notify me of the bonfire I'd inadvertently sparked. As anyone can see from my contribution history, I've not been very active on-wiki as of late, (been wordsmithing the accursed Abortion proposed decision more than actually doing anything fun...) and I don't regularly read ANI anyway, so I might have missed it entirely had you not seen fit to mention it to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• We now have some procedural wrangling at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse#Resolution. Please can you help advise on the best way forward. Warden (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Odds are that I will have some time to look into this in 14ish hours. For now, if everyone can be polite and source things like they should have been all along, and agree to a reasonable pace for doing so, there shouldn't need to be any more issues. Jclemens (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Ab initio

Is my draft attempt at reducing core policies to simple language by furnishing the reasons for them. Feel free to tear it apart. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with those is that everyone sees things differently. On first blush, yours looks mostly OK, although I would have said some things in entirely different ways. I'll see if I can get you more detailed feedback, but I'm up to my alligators in eyeballs. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback made a lot of changes - I rewrote a bit to make it as clear as possible, but when your eyeballs clear <g> yor input would be invaluable. Also anyone else who is lurking and wishes to see Wikipedia be made comprehensible to non-lawyers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Appending: It was sort of nice to see my suggestion about the "double or nothing" rule being adopted [1] <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded

I just now responded to something you wrote on my talk page by asking you a question. Since the discussion is really long and it was many hours ago when you wrote, I wanted to leave you a note here to make sure you see it, because I'm very curious to learn your answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cripples Bastards and Broken Things

I have given this article a review and left comments at Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1. Thank you for you contributions. My main concern is the references and since it has been in the queue for so long I thought I would give you a chance to find some more reliable replacements. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will get to this this weekend. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)