User talk:Jclemens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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...

Probably inappropriate speedy deletions[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For future reference, the post that started this was here

The article was written entirely from an in-universe perspective, and the title is misleading and would be unhelpful to anyone who has not heard of "Space Ghost" (i.e. most people in the world). The context is simply inadequate, and the creator is not new, though his immediate recreation of the page shows that he has not read the guidelines. However, I agree that a redirect would have been preferable in the first instance. Deb (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Deb, I'm not sure I understand your response. Are you agreeing that your deletions did not fit the criteria for A1? Or are you asserting that they were, in fact, proper A1 speedy deletions? Please note again that the criteria for A1 excludes things that can be contextualized "possibly with the aid of a web search". Mind you, I'm only able to see the title, not any content, so if there was another speedy deletion criterion which applied, I'd be interested to know what it was. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm agreeing that I used it too quickly, where on further consideration I could have used a redirect. I would point out that the A1 criterion has long been the subject of argument, and the present wording appears to contradict itself. However, the deletion debate will be the decider on whether the page is encyclopedic. Deb (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Deb, I'd suggest not using A1 on new articles like that at all. Having been both a content creator and a new page patroller, I get the uncomfortable tension between trying to keep the new nonsense to a minimum, and to not bite the newbies at the same time. There's already a large sentiment that admins don't follow our own 'rules', and that sort of deletion only serves to reinforce that misapprehension, without really protecting Wikipedia from much. A new "fancruft" article? Big deal. There are so many more serious things wrong in Wikipedia--defamation, partisan hit pieces, copyvios, ads masquerading as articles, etc.--that I would encourage you to use IAR to deal with instead. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you don't mean to, but you are coming across as terribly condescending. Deb (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Deb, that's a fair criticism. In my defense, I'm trying to be non-confrontational about correcting you and build trust and community in the process. How would you suggest I have addressed the matter, both initially and in follow-up? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I would have said you could have let it go after my first response above. Now you just sound like you like the sound of your own voice (figuratively speaking). Deb (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Deb I would have been happy to drop it if you'd initially said something simple like "Thanks for pointing that out." Unfortunately, you didn't, and still haven't, unequivocally acknowledged that your use of A1 violated both the letter and spirit of A1. When you do something wrong with the admin tools--as any admin who actually does stuff will do from time to time--the right way to deal with it is to apologize and move on. You didn't, and thus this longer conversation ensued. While I regret that this probably seems like I'm lecturing you, I'd much rather explain in detail than clutter up some noticeboard and nominate you for a Two Minutes Hate, as is a typical response to any admin getting anything wrong: I know, I've been the recipient of the latter on more than one occasion. Are we good here? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you're stuck on the idea of "wrong" and "right". I agreed with you, immediately, that a redirect would have been preferable. Later, I clarified my position by pointing out that the wording of A1 is self-contradictory and therefore bound to be open to interpretation, and it's therefore perfectly possible that my interpretation is not what is generally accepted. But I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering again. You won't achieve compromise with other editors by repeatedly ticking them off for what you consider to be offences against the community, even though I know you believe you are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Let's put this behind us, please. Deb (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Deb, I think you misunderstood my point. I am not interested in compromise, because there simply isn't anything to compromise about: this isn't a content discussion. My goal is to get an admin, you, to stop misusing your tools by deleting articles in ways not permitted by (speedy) deletion policy. My goal has always been to do so in a friendly, drama-free (or -minimized) manner, but that has not been received well, so I have tried becoming increasingly direct, in hopes that you would recognize your error and correct your interpretation and conduct. The fact that yes, Jan (Space Ghost) should indeed be a redirect somewhere else does not make your A1 deletions appropriate.
Your protestation that A1 is contradictory and open to interpretation is not compelling, because it's neither, and to the extent that you think it is, you undermine my faith in your ability to properly apply CSD criteria. This is not wikilawyering; this is only up for debate to the extent that you protest that the rules that govern your use of tools are too unclear. You have replied to my queries and statements appropriately politely per WP:ADMINACCT, and have my thanks for that. However, it has become increasingly clear that you are not going to change your position, and it serves nothing for me to keep repeating or rephrasing my critiques in hope that you will change your interpretation. Wikipedia needs administrators willing to do the thankless job, but in order to thrive, our administrators must behave consistently and according to our documented tool usage policies. I can't see the upside in widening the review here, however, since my effort has always been to make you better at your job, not parade your mistakes in public. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do what you like. Here I was, thinking that you'd been hard done by when you lost your adminship, but now I can see the reasons for it. Deb (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction good article nomination[edit]

Thank you greatly for your thorough and thoughtful review, the article has improved greatly through your commentary - we have both devoted a lot of time to improving this article and it really is looking much better.

As it is, in my opinion (as the nominator), I think the article meets the good article criteria and think we have addressed the main GA-related issues and are now at the point of mostly stylistic improvements more styled towards an WP:FA review.

I have attempted to address all the issues you have raised, I feel we are getting to a point where our stylistic or linguistic preferences are diverging and this has the potential to have another month or so of discussions... this is going to result in my limited wiki time being spent less fruitfully than on improving other articles (which is my main joy here).

I would ask that you have a quick look at any issues you believe are outstanding based strictly on the good article criteria that would block promotion. Any other issues we can continue to discuss on the talk page... I am getting itchy feet. As it is, I am going on holiday for 2 weeks and look forward to seeing your reply then (or, let's face it I'll probably check whilst on holiday anyway!) Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Tom, you've done a fantastic job. You've exceeded the GA criteria, and essentially rearchitected the whole article in the process of improving it. See the Barnstar on your talk page; you've more than earned it and the GA pass. I plead that my level of obsessiveness has been justified by the fact that, like it or not, people will read our health articles and do or not do things based on our info and recommendations, and, in this case, getting it right saves lives. Again, thanks for letting me work with you on this journey. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


As a former admin you should know better then to make unsubstantiated personal attacks against another editor as you did here [1]. Comment on content not individuals. The ArbCom case you referenced was declined without me even making an opening statement. Heck I only typed one word before they started declining. Need more proof? User:Legacypac/CSD_log Feel free to retract your comment. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, help me out here... what, exactly, is the personal attack? What, exactly, would you prefer to see retracted? Do be aware that "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.", per WP:NPA. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
" I'll note that the tagger has been dragged to ArbCom for overzealous draftspace cleanup... Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2017 " which implies pretty strongly I've been overzealous in cleanup and does not note the case has been rejected. Like "Joe was accused of xyz" without telling the whole story, is just a way to cast doubt on someone without evidence. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Part of living in Wikipedia that other people will describe things in ways that you wouldn't. But really: how is describing your activities as overzealous cleanup a personal attack? Overzealous cleanup is part and parcel of what we deal with at DRV: the exceptional bit isn't overzealous cleanup (which doesn't itself WP:ABF), but the fact that you were indeed drug to Arbcom. The fact that they chose not to open a case is something you can, and did, note, but it doesn't change the fact that you were, indeed, drug to Arbcom. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
that is not why I was drug to arbcom. The real reason should be obvious from everyone's comments. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4 demonstrates that you've taken actions that are widely characterized by other editors as bad faith gaming the deletion system. Your actions led to Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring where your tactics were again repudiated. The fact that another editor (whom I will not name so that you can actually still participate in this discussion) happens to carry a bigger grudge than everyone else does not mean you have clean hands. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Reviewer Barnstar[edit]

Reviewer Barnstar Hires.png The Reviewer Barnstar
For your comprehensive and attentive review of Myocardial infarction. The article has improved dramatically because of your careful and well thought-out review. A stellar job! Tom (LT) (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for putting up with me nit-picking things to death. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Nival_(company)#Nival got hacked last year. Encyclopedic to include?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nival_(company)#Nival got hacked last year. Encyclopedic to include?. Pavel Novikov (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)