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 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)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've chimed in there, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security

As one of the more active participants of WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force, would you like to comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security#WikiProject restructuring? Cheers, —Ruud 18:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I replied there, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Making a simple case into a mountain of motions?

Um -- I do not expect any answer, but I find it hard to fathom the motions being proposed on the "Unblock case discussion" page. I still rather think my proposal was elegant there, and wish it were directly proposed as being 1. short 2. simple 3. non-judgmental in a fairly moot case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you followed my voting, you'll see I preferred to open a case, and endorsed the motions only as it has become apparent that the committee would not open the case. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I noted that - I also was willing to give odds that enough would keep it from being a case <g>. Would that the others realized that deferring messes rarely prevents them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that the sort of communication that Arbitrators usually engage in?

I was wondering if you had just missed my repeated, patient requests for your comments and thoughts about how you believe the climate change sanctions should be lifted. Apparently not. After three weeks and three polite follow-up inquiries ([1], [2], [3]) you went to the trouble of shortening the archive time on your talk page – while in the process of promptly and courteously replying to the other outstanding requests ([4]) – just so you could finally quickly shuffle my request off into your archives.

I'm just really, really disappointed that you couldn't even be bothered to tell me openly that you couldn't be bothered to answer my question. There's a basic standard of communicativeness that the community expects of Arbitrators, even if you're faced with editors who might disagree with you. I get that you're busy and that you have multiple demands on your time, but a short message telling me either that my interpretation of your reasoning was correct, or that you might handle things differently in future motions, or that you just don't want to share your reasoning with me because you don't like me – anything at all – would have been better than the brush-off you just gave. I mean really—you couldn't even bring yourself to manually archive my thread; you had to set the bot to do your dirty work? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you repeatedly kept a thread "alive" to defeat automatic MiszaBot archiving by posting into it yourself has vindicated my decision to not reply. Whether you are as incapable of taking a hint as you protest above, or in fact have just directly lied to me about your thoughts and motivation, are left as an exercise for the reader. I will also note for those without access to my mailbox that TOAT has not chosen to email be privately with any of his questions or his "reminders". Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That is one view. Another is that it would have been reasonable for you to reply to the original question, or failing that to state that you were not prepared to reply. Simply remaining dumb is not civil; flailing around with accusations of lying, ditto William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)