User talk:Jclemens
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 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-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...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- Wow, that's appalling. There was no 'hint' to be taken, until you decided to adjust your page archiving parameters. Until you did that, I was working under the assumption that either you hadn't seen my post, or that you wanted to take time to formulate a reasoned reply. The follow-up messages weren't deliberately aimed at defeating talk page archiving; at five-to-six-day intervals, I felt that they struck a reasonable balance between my desire to see a response to my queries, and my desire not to be a nuisance to someone who has a wide range of responsibilities. The 'defeating' of MiszaBot was an unintended side effect that I wasn't even aware of until I noticed your changes to the bot's parameters.
- If you didn't want to communicate with me, you could have simply said so. Instead of ignoring me for three weeks, and playing games with your talk page archive settings, you could have tried replying even once just to say that you weren't going to respond to queries on your talk page. I don't know why it would have helped for me to email you—you've just said that you were deliberately ignoring me, so I can't imagine the benefit to having you ignore me in another medium as well. The questions that I posed were of interest – I believe – to the other parties to the case and to the broader community; I didn't think that a hidden response would have been nearly as useful or nearly as constructive a use of anyone's time.
- I don't even begin know where to deal with being called a liar by you. If you've constructed a fantasy about some hidden agenda of mine, either have the guts to share it with the class or keep your snide innuendoes to yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what your upbringing was, but where I grew up, asking a parent the same question multiple times when no answer was forthcoming was grounds for punishment. I have no idea what your professional background is, but in my previous and current employment, asking my supervisor the same question multiple times when no answer was forthcoming (with a few exceptions which aren't relevant here) would have been viewed as pushy and rude. I don't know what sort of relationships you've had, but asking my wife the same question multiple times when she deferred answering really annoys her. I'm none of those things to you, but now you've been publicly (again, your choice to not use email...) socialized a bit.
- Oh, and WMC's self-reverted comment on this thread does nothing but reinforce my growing suspicion that this entire evolution was engineered, rather than a legitimate question. So, if you were lying to me, and not simply ignorant as you claimed above, you have my apologies for the previous paragraph's pedantry. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- There was no engineering, certainly not on my part. However, I have no idea what your upbringing was, but where I grew up, asking a parent the same question multiple times when no answer was forthcoming was grounds for punishment... definitely reinforces my view that you have an over-inflated opinion of yourself. You are not here in a parent role William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- There was no collusion, collaboration, or 'engineering' whatsoever between myself and WMC, or anyone else. It is a remarkable and disturbing imagination you have that leads you to conclude editors who jointly disagree with you must be involved in a conspiracy. I asked you a question because I thought you either made a poor judgement based on poor reasoning, or else you had poorly communicated your justification for a vote on a motion.
- I posted a request to your talk page hoping that you might clarify that reasoning, or at least restate your position in terms that didn't look quite so unreasonable. I followed up first because I thought you might have missed my message, then because it seemed likely that the ArbCom would be handling similar motions in the near future, and finally because the ArbCom was faced with such a motion.
- You are neither my parent nor my employer – for which I am doubly grateful – and analogies based on those authority relationships are specious. Far more apt comparisons might be drawn to public servants or even elected officials. A refusal to communicate with your community and constituency is a failure on your part; your alternately insulting and condescending behavior since then has compounded that failure.
- This all could have been avoided with six words from you, any time in the last three weeks: "I don't want to discuss it." It would have been brusque and it would have been below the standard of openness that an Arbitrator should seek to achieve, but I would have taken it. It would have been a token acknowledgement that I was a real person, worthy of thirty seconds of your attention, even though I disagreed with you. Instead, here we are, with your explanation of how your rudeness is to my benefit, how you're "publicly socializing" me. Indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)