User talk:Jclemens/Archive 14

Talk:Hungary/GA3

Jclemens, it has been over three months since you last posted to this review. Please let me know whether you plan to return to it soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes BlueMoonset I have been busy with other things and that review has fallen behind in priority. If you'd like, I can bow out, or if you're willing to wait a week until my finals are done, I should have some time to address it in depth around the holiday season, with substantial progress within 10 days. Which would you prefer? Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Jclemens, I'm happy to wait 10 days if that will see substantial progress, with more in subsequent days. Best of luck with your finals, and thanks for the quick reply! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Whedonesque screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Whedonesque screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Armin T. Wegner

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Armin T. Wegner you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of K.e.coffman -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Imaginaria

Hey there, in the AfD discussion for Imaginaria back in November, you found two sources for the topic which you held high as making the topic notable. Fair enough, however, since the AfD has closed nothing has changed on the article itself, so I wondered if you could, at one point, take some time to cleanup/rewrite the article using the sources? For reference: the AfD, source 1 (Motherboard), source 2 (Spoutly)]. Lordtobi (✉) 18:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Any editor can fix anything at any time. If you'll look at my contributions, they're pretty spotty, and mostly limited to Afd/DRV specializing in a few areas, the GA process as both a nominator and reviewer, and Vital Articles. I really don't have time to do what I do, but I do so because I love Wikipedia, and keep investing in it despite its flaws--most egregious among those flaws, the deletion rather than improvement of notable topics. There's just one of me, a bazillion topics that need to be edited rather than abandoned, and so my ultimate answer is WP:SOFIXIT. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to get back to editing the article of a man who stood up to two genocides. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Another vital GAN

This has been languishing a while without a review, and I thought you might be interested in reviewing silicon. (I'm aware that there are comments on the talk page but I'm not sure I agree with all of them. I do fondly remember our interactions while you were reviewing Fe, N, and element 120. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Double sharp I'm taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, I think. I've simply got too many other things going on right now to give things my best. I anticipate becoming much more active after this semester is over, but sincerely hope you've gotten a good reviewer by then. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Armin T. Wegner

Hi, I've received some feedback from the 2nd opinion request: Talk:Armin_T._Wegner/GA1#Second_opinion_request. How would you like to proceed? --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, the good news is that I have managed to get hooked up with the Wikipedia Library Card program, and will likely be able to find more resources. The bad news is that I have quite a few competing obligations through April 10th. I will try and take a look at the review again and provide response there. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A follow-up to Talk:Armin T. Wegner/GA1. It does not look like you planning to return, so I will probably close in a couple of days. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Armin T. Wegner

The article Armin T. Wegner you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Armin T. Wegner 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of K.e.coffman -- K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Portable hole

You're an inclusionist. I'm a deletionist. Would you be willing to work with me on Portable hole? The sourcing is terrible. Much of it is unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are low-quality. But I'm convinced it's a viable topic. Would appreciate any help you could give finding better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an inclusionist. I am a curationist: I value the work others have added to Wikipedia, and do not believe that deleting poor quality articles on valid topics improves Wikipedia. Most problems can be solved by regular editing, but that takes time and effort. Unfortunately, I have four jobs and am in two separate academic programs, so I don't have the time to invest in this or any other topic at the moment. I might if I wasn't investing what little time I am able to eke out in contesting deletion discussions that, by their very nature, violate WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Patents

Hi. What patents did you make? I am interested in that. (sorry for wasting your time, I'm very curious) Huff slush7264 15:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing anyone would recognize, really. Why do you ask? Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

your assistance please...

Could you please restore the expired {{prod}}, Jeff Morrow (disambiguation), as additional individuals named Jeff Morrow have emerged.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't do this, as I am no longer an admin. I have no objection to it at all, but WP:REFUND would be a much better place to ask. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Floyd Dryden Middle School

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Floyd Dryden Middle School, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Network News (2nd nomination)

Hi. Only after starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Network News (2nd nomination), I noticed that it was you who improved that article to decent standards a few years ago. For this and because I've seen you leave fair comments on AfDs, I invite you to join this particular AfD discussion. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination#Disenfranchised without notice?

Sigh. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

That discussion has now been archived. I'm sympathetic to your plea. Just noting though, that your one vote would be unlikely to sway the overall outcome, and you could potentially have had more impact on the vote had you shared your thoughts about your fellow arbs on the discuss the candidates page, or written a voter guide.

Here's what I suggest doing, if you really feel strongly about this. Promptly file a private "provisional ballot" by email to the electoral commission, before the results are announced. If, when the totals are ready to be announced, it turns out that your vote actually would change who won (and hopefully the commission would be nice enough to let you know this before they announce the results), then you could potentially appeal this to the broader community via an RfC... but I'd think hard about doing that, weighing whether the cost in community time and drama would be worth it. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a voter guide once.... 2013? It wasn't a good idea, really, and I don't know the field well enough to have done a worthwhile job for this year. Besides, my rationale for the people I care about is based on privileged information--I can't just say "so-and-so was really immature in discussing such-and-such a case" because I'd consider that an unethical disclosure of private deliberation, and I'm not... Well, people who remember know who.

I like the idea of voting a provisional ballot via email. I agree that that's a reasonable approach, and that it will likely not matter. Ultimately, the abhorrence of disenfranchising existing voters prompts more dissatisfaction with the injustice of the process (reasons I've articulated elsewhere) (due to my perspective on historical efforts to keep 'disfavored' people from voting here in the United States through various means) than any hubristic belief that one vote would actually make a material difference. TL;DR, it's the principle. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WIRED" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WIRED. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WIRED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Armin Wegner Older.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Armin Wegner Older.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of DartMUD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DartMUD, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DartMUD (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Good article drive notice

This message has been sent to users signed up for the Good articles newsletter. Add or remove your name from the list to subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith speedy deletions are not helping

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Jclemens! I don't know what drove you to make the really bad tasting speedy deletion on Vivien Keszthelyi article minutes after it has been voted on AfD as keep but I kindly but firmly request you to refrain from bad faith editing, stalking and other kinds of harrassment. If you dislike the community vote you can start walking the dispute resolution steps, mainly by starting to discuss your problems with your fellow editors. Putting gratuitous speedy on articles is really not the way it works. Thank you! --grin ✎ 11:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Hi, Grin. You appear to have been around Wikipedia for quite some time, so the following explanation should not be necessary: 1) G5 designates speedy deletion for an article created by a sockpuppet. Vivien Keszthelyi was created by a sockpuppet, User:Monapop a sock of User:HigyFlyer6. 2) The article in question has also repeatedly been re-created after deletion discussions. 3) The AfD in question was closed by a non-admin, and has been contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 25 4) WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline. I do not see how your post here remotely corresponds to that, but I'm open to an explanation if you choose to provide one. 5) When an action appears to be spontaneous, often the editor's immediately prior edits will provide some history. In this case, my immediately prior edit was this, which explains what action I was taking and why. I'm sorry if there was not sufficient context for you to understand why the article was tagged for speedy deletion; my assumption was that any good-faith editor could see the definition of G5, go back to the creation of the article, and see that, yes, Monapop is blocked as a sockpuppet. Finally, not sure exactly whether the rest of the notice is a WP:DTTR violation, or simply an attempt to poison any dialogue. Regardless, if you want me to take you seriously, your next post here will be an apology for this post. Failing that, future talk page edits by you will simply be reverted or ignored at my discretion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC) G5 also contains: "and that have no substantial edits by others." Which in this case is not relevant anymore, so I must agree Grin (BTW who is the founder of Hungarian national version of Wikipedia...) that there must be some background purpose why her enwiki article is under "permanent" deletion attacks. JSoos (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC) You know, if Grin had opened with that explanation instead of accusations of bad faith on my part, I would have apologized for the error immediately. Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Check this

Could you check these edits? The page title no longer matches the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they're wrong. I've never heard of the distinction being made by the recent editor, but different places call the same things different names--it'd be worth consulting the RS'es, and my fire service library is, well, packed away in boxes at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters

Hey there! :) Do you have any future plans for this one? I'm thinking some folks like User:Daranios or User:Sariel Xilo might be able to find enough sources to resurrect it at some point, and I did add a couple of things to it when it was first userfied. BOZ (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No active plans, no. If you or anyone else wants to work on it... that's why it's on-Wiki. Just because it's in my userspace doesn't mean I own it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Firefly fandom

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Signal (podcast), you suggested that an article be built at Firefly fandom (as a target for merging the podcast). My instinct says there's enough out there to sustain an article, but were you serious as well? I've listed 24 potential sources (pulled from a historical version of Browncoat) at Talk:Firefly fandom#sources, and would happily take up the task if you think there's legitimately a place for it. Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am absolutely serious. I think the Fandom is the primary thing that makes Firefly particularly notable, not only during its abortive first run, but also in the aftermath. The podcast, the fan campaigns... for a tiny little show, it had and has a lot of people who love it. And that fandom, for our purposes, absolutely has plenty of independent reliable sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but I doubted others would concur. I'll create a draft and begin work on that in the next few days. You mind if I poke you for input now and then? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it's the least I can do. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You've got ~30 redirects to the TV series [1], a few of them are likely to have other unmerged content suitable for incorporation, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll mine those next! I'm currently asking about the lost page to which Flanvention once redirected. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

... And then there were the things where WP:ATD was ignored, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoats' Backup Bash. Goodness knows how much miscellany we have already that could be stitched together into a good article. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

On a tangential note, I haven't even begun to assess how much of the content at the work-in-progress User:BOZ/Games deletions might have been saved (or might still be resurrected) with a little WP:ATD. :) BOZ (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Laugh of the day

• [2]

Lol. Thanks for my laugh of the day  : ) - jc37 18:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Glad someone got the joke; hope poor S Marshall didn't think I was having fun solely at his expense. :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Time flies

• [3]

It is truly amazing how time has flown by. has it really been over 20 years since the 90s? Feels like a lot less... - jc37 08:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It's less than three weeks out from the 20th anniversary of 9/11. A whole generation (including my daughter) has been born who only know that event as history. BOZ (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that people actually still have my user and talk pages watchlisted. It's not like I've done anything meaningful or important here in the last half of my total time at Wikipedia. Actually, I take that back--working on GA noms for vital articles is probably far more of each than anything I ever did as an admin or an arb. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

lol. I personally wouldn't know.

Of course, even after purging a bunch, I still have 7,212 pages on my watchlist lol - jc37 01:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The secret to wiki happiness. Apply once every couple of years, or as needed.

One of these days, I may well turn in my mop too. I only have a few GAs, but I do find them much more rewarding than chasing vandals and socks. As for my ever-growing watchlist (which, by some bizarre coincidence, happens to have 7,279 pages on it right now), it may be time for me to click the button again. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Resign the mop for six months, and take it back up again once you're good and reacquainted with actual editing. Hmm... You know, RfA is all about "are you open to recall?" but maybe appointing people for six months at a time, alternating with six months off, could (should?) be a thing. Most of the problems with the admin corps can be fixed by breaking down the barriers between admins and editors. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ramsey Campbell deities

Seeing your comment at the Henry Kuttner deities discussion, I just wanted to let you know that the similar case of Ramsey Campbell deities is also up for deletion. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd seen that, but not gotten around to it--thanks for the reminder. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Mentorship

You know, a couple situations of late had me wishing that we still had the mentorship programs the way we used to have. (I've looked around, things don't appear to be like they used to along those lines). I think there have been a few instances lately where I think that might have done more good than the RBI/ani merry-go-round, then >ban< - everyone out of the pool.

This isn't some poorly crafted subtle hint or anything, just an observation... I think you would have been very good at mentoring.

Hmm, in fact...

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For your apparently excellent mentoring skills, and just for all that which you do, do. : ) - jc37 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's something shiny and well-earned : ) - jc37 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I haven't all that much time to devote to Wikipedia--in fact, I suspect several people who care about me very much would argue I should focus more on my doctoral studies, entrepreneurial efforts, continuing medical education, or just getting my lungs back up to par after Covid, rather than be spending time back here again.

I think I would indeed make a much better mentor now than I would have when I was most active here, embroiled in various controversies, and the like. But then, again, I've lived 8 years since then mostly taking care of hurting human beings, and it forces you to take a different perspective on life.

Regardless, thanks for the bling. I've been spending more time trying to buff my ORCID than my Wikipedia user page. Someday, I might even link the two... Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Well deserved.

And I empathise about other things that I suppose I could/should be doing instead, though when I say them out loud, none sound anywhere near as prestigious as yours : )

And I am very sorry to hear that you have had to deal with that affliction, I hope that you get back up to top shape soon.

As for "back then"... They have a tool which you can look to your edits (and type of edits) per year and even per month. I look back over a decade ago and see some years where I am like, how the heck did I do so much? Those are manual edits. I guess Wikipedia felt more like being in the center of the whirlwind back then. Not sure how I would define it now.

Though looking back, while I won't argue that you may be better now, but my (vague) recollection is that you were one of the saner people on arbcom in your time. (not that others weren't of course lol)

Anyway, if I let myself, I could start writing a book of ruminations and reflections here, and you already have wall-o-text going on, you don't need my penchant for verbosity adding to it : ) - jc37 04:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I just looked again - [4] - I checked yours too. 2008 must've been some year here lol - jc37 04:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

First presidential election where Wikipedia was mainstream. LOTS of POV warring, Wikipedia's teenage tantrum, in retrospect. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

AFC and AFD

We recently contributed to the same DRV discussion, started by an editor with a particular interpretation of WP:NCORP. The consensus there, as at AFD, seems fairly overwhelmingly contrary to that editor's interpretation of that guideline. Without trying wiki-hound an editor who now says they have stepped away from editing for a while, than interpretation seems to have been used extensively to reject articles at AFC, based solely on that interpretation. Specifically, the editor believes their interpretation of WP:ORGIND means anything that might be construed as an interview (regardless of the independence of the interviewer) should be rejected as an independent source. In fact, that section of that guideline makes no reference to interviews at all. There are many, but recent ones include this one, and this one. Both include extensive references and were rejected because of this interpretation alone. You seemed to be across the substance and I didn't want to drag this to WP:ANI. Your thoughts? St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently old school that I don't really pay attention to AfC, so I'm not familiar with its usage. If a niche notability view is being used to reject articles at AfC that would, on the average, survive and AfD, then that's a mismatch, in my opinion. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

And that's the question, isn't it? Is my interpretation a "niche notability view" or not. I'm happy to implement whatever is written in the guidelines. It's one thing for AfD closers to have the ability to, essentially, ignore whether NCORP is applicable or not (and which some editors use to game the system) depending on the participants. This I've learned and this has left me very deflated and questioning why even bother contributing at NCORP-related AfDs which are going to return to the bad-old pre-2018 days where every "consensus" will simply say "meets GNG" and precendence has been set that the closer can't do anything about that. But. It's quite another (and one I vehemently don't agree with) to say that the interpretation is "nonsense", "disingenuously exclusionary", "narrow and exclusionary", "rigid dogmatism", "borderline disrputive", "hyper-strict", etc (and that's just a sample from Stalwart111's responses). I'm happy to learn, I'm happy to clarify guidelines so that "interpretations" can be less open to interpretation, but I'm not going to put up with passive-aggressive bullying and ad hominen sniping. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It helps to confirm that my concern is not misplaced. I really don't think ANI is the right place for it, though. Would AN be better? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How about engaging him on his talk page? He gave the impression that he felt quite rebuked by the DRV, so being conciliatory in approach might well build common ground. On the other hand, both the AfC drafts you cited did represent organizations as organizations, which are clearly more (how much more is open to debate) within the bailiwick of NCORP as properly construed. Food for thought. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

He has blanked his talk and replaced it with a goodbye message. That would have absolutely been my first step and I went there with that intention. He can choose to step away, of course, but the issue itself still needs to be dealt with. I might start with a thread on the talk page of WP:NCORP. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Or just go through and un-de-accept what he'd rejected and leave it for someone else to process. When you retire, however temporarily, you give up the right to complain if someone decides to re-do what you've most recently done... within reason. WP:GRAVEDANCING is just petty and any appearance of it should be avoided. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. Appreciate your time and advice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm being openly attacked by Stalwart111, I've suspended my break to get the issue sorted. There are two "discussions" taking place at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (organizations and companies) where your opinion and input is welcome. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you two can work out your difference in interpretation amicably; we're all here to write the best online encyclopedia possible, even if we might disagree about what precisely that looks like, right? Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This is fundamentally a conduct issue. Promulgating an opinion of guidelines (that in the context of businesses, interviews are always primary sources and never independent of the interview subject, regardless of where they are published or how) in AFD is potentially problematic, but can be dealt with by calling the attention of other editors to that misinterpretation. Doing so to prevent others from editing "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (by leveraging that opinion to unilaterally reject submissions at AFC) is more serious. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely 100% agree it is a "conduct" issue but more reflective of yours, not mine. At no time did you stop to think that maybe the "problem" you believe exists is with the wording of the guideline because as it is written, I can point to and justify my interpretation from wording in NCORP. Your argument now appears to focus exclusive on "interviews" but even then your best argument is that is how it is being implemented and my AfD stats show a 90% alignment with consensus. I ask myself why it is that you decided it was a problem/issue with me personally rather than an issue to be discussed in the context of NCORP wording and no good answer comes to mind. As can be seen this isn't a new issue either but your personalising of the issue and your continued ad hominen attacks on me are uncalled for and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is just plain nasty bullying. So with the greatest of respect, I'm happy to discuss interpretation of guidelines and wording, happy to implement whatever is in those guidelines, happy to engage with respect to other people's points of view, but I draw the line at your cowardly bullying and attacks, snide and sly remarks and overall bullshittery. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Then stop using your narrow interpretation of guidelines to reject content at AFC. There's no bullying here. That sort of thing damages the project and you can get as defensive as you like but I've been clear about my intention of stopping that from the beginning, first here and then at the WP:NCORP talk page. When you "retired", I considered getting help from admins to systematically review and undo those AFC rejections. That's exactly what I asked about above. I'm still hopeful that damage can be undone. Though I didn't expect you to, I'm glad you've returned to engage and discuss things, but (again) I consider this a much bigger problem than one DRV or a couple of AFDs. And it was never personal. Yours are the examples I found, but I was genuinely unsure how many editors were doing the same. Yours was only drawn to my attention by that DRV; when your view was so at-odds with every other editor there I became concerned that it might have moved beyond that one AFD and into other project areas. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I haven't been an admin for almost 8 years, IIRC. Doesn't mean I don't know more about some bits of policy than most current admins, but I don't have a mop. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies Jclemens for muddying up your Talk page with this discussion - if Stalwart111 wants to continue I'm happy if he wants to move this to some other Talk page - mine, his, wherever. I didn't start this fight/row and Stalwart111's accusations directed against me are flat out wrong. I also don't forget that this row was started with a battery of ad hominen accusations in multiple discussion focused on his totally unfounded and untrue assumption that not only way my interpretation "nonsense", "disingenuously exclusionary", "narrow and exclusionary", "rigid dogmatism", "borderline disrputive", "hyper-strict", etc, but that the community at AfD was "overwhelmingly contrary" to my interpretation. Total bullshit and I think you were 100% correct to detect the WP:GRAVEDANCING. He's *still* saying I have a "narrow interpretation" and that now the new accusation of a vague "that sort of thing" "damages the project" and that he's "still hopeful that damage can be undone". Stalwart111 has had ample opportunity at NCORP Talk page to make his case. To date and despite being asked on several occasions, no coherent and cogent explanation has been provided and his interpretation of the word "frequently" in relation to interviews is perverse - so perverse that if the roles were reversed the complaints against me might have some actual foundation. I have a real problem with Stalwart111's conduct here. At no time, ever, was there even a recognition or acknowlegment along the lines of "Hey, HighKing, I can see where you've come up with your interpretation but section X says YY and perhaps you should make some allowances for things of type Z", or a reaching out to say "Hey HighKing, I think NCORP has moved too far away from the *spirit* of the project - can you help and get involved with discussing some changes to make it less so". HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really mind. There's not much else going on here, and if I can help facilitate actual conversations about things, so much the better. To that end, the more I think about what was said in the DRV should be incorporated into NCORP somehow: 1) the guideline is for entities that are primarily understood as corporations. If a corporation has a product that gets RS coverage and we don't have enough for a spinout article on the product, then the coverage of a corporation's products rightfully belongs on a page about the corporation. Thus, in my mind it should be possible to have a legitimate corporation article that consists of sub-GNG coverage of multiple products that, in total, amounts to multiple independent RS'es of the products of the corporation, but no coverage of the nominal topic of the article--a company--as an organization. 2) and important enough to incorporate is that the purpose of the guideline is to discourage corporate self-promotion. Our goal has always been to not let Wikipedia coverage be a stepping stone on the way to "arriving" but instead an after-the-fact documentation of the impact of a corporation (or whatever) on the culture, as measured by RS coverage. Does that make sens to both of you? Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It does to me. I think NCORP needs work and its application should be clearer and more consistent with the application of other guidelines. But ultimately, that's less relevant than someone's use of the guideline to reject content without community oversight. I'm of the view that where you're in a position to unilaterally make decisions about inclusion (or not) you should take the most liberal and flexible approach possible. And that seems to be the view held by most people. Ultimately, AFD exists so that the community can make decisions about whether something should be allowed to stay. But the default is inclusion. It's why PRODs require a rationale but PROD removal does not. It's why article deletion discussions require a nomination but article creation does not. What we've seen at AFC is HighKing acting like a one-man deletion discussion, forming a view of guidelines and implementing that view without community involvement. Is that a fault of the AFC system? Perhaps. Is it the community's fault NCORP isn't clearer and some of these questions remain unresolved? Perhaps. But when you're working with a guideline you openly agree is "much stricter" than WP:GNG, you should exercise an abundance of caution. You certainly shouldn't be applying your own even stricter interpretation and using that to tell people, "sorry, your content isn't welcome here". St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about HighKing, or to him? What might his rationale be for doing what he does? How can you find common ground? What shared Wikipedia values can you draw upon to find a way forward? Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

About him, in response to your comment. But I've addressed him directly here and elsewhere. HighKing seems to think this is some kind of out-of-the-blue vendetta or personal campaign. It's not. His frustration and lamentations at DRV (completely at odds with everyone else who commented) resulted in my looking at his recent contributions. When I noticed the problematic AFCs and saw he had retired in the meantime, I came here and then went to NCORP. I suspect the AFC rejections came about because HighKing believes the project needs protecting from companies who seek to promote themselves here. I certainly think we agree there. At AFC he can apply his interpretation of NCORP to reject articles without the checks and balances of AFD (which he believes gets it wrong more often than not). And therein lies our disagreement. Regardless of his current status, he seems to have stopped reviewing submissions at AFC. That being the case, there is no immediate problem, and we can move on to reviewing some of those previous AFCs. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

There isn't much hope of Stalwart111 and me coming to any kind of "working together" when he's still making bullshit accusations in multiple locations about "problematic conduct".

• For example, he is trying to misrepresent my "frustration and lamentation" at DRV. Let me be clear and although I've said this already, he chooses to ignore what I've said previously - my "frustration" and dismay at DRV was entirely due to the inability of the closer to ignore !votes based on GNG even though NCORP might be the applicable guideline. So, if I'm at an AfD and I read the references and I find they don't meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, but 3 or 4 editors drop a simple "Passes GNG" !vote and don't engage further, the closer pretty much has to include those !votes. This was a huge problem in the past with editors working in a coordinated fashion. In my opinion, this will lead to abuse and !vote bloating.
• I've already seen Stalwart111 pop into an AfD where I've already !voted making snide personal comments. It was withdrawn by the nominator partly because of Stalwart111's vendetta.
• Nowhere did I say I was "retired" although I can understand why he might have assumed that. I said I was stepping back. I have spent the last two or three years focused solely on NCORP-related topics, mainly AfDs, and what I learned at DRV needed some time to absorb. The question I posed at that DRV (why bother with NCORP at all if editors can !vote based on GNG) has no good answer that I've yet discovered.
• This comment: "At AFC he can apply his interpretation of NCORP to reject articles without the checks and balances of AFD (which he believes gets it wrong more often than not). And therein lies our disagreement." There's so much wrong with this comment I don't know where to start. I have rarely "rejected" an article at AfC (I guess maybe 4 rejections in all my years of editing) and then only when there are 3 or 4 previous declines and the article has not been improved. I participated in the latest AfC push (just got a barnstar and all - notable for all of Stalwart111's "concerns" he didn't bother to participate) and as you probably know, there are random reviews performed, all were confirmed. So just more bullshit on Stalwart111's part. He says "Regardless of his current status, he seems to have stopped reviewing submissions at AFC. That being the case, there is no immediate problem, and we can move on to reviewing some of those previous AFCs." Yet. More. Bullshit. I haven't "stopped reviewing" submissions at AfC - it isn't something I regularly do in any case. And really - you guys both want to "review" some of those AfCs? Great! Keep me posted because I intend to vigorously fight each and every bullshit non-interpretation of fantasy "let's just ignore NCORP wording" interpretations put out of Stalwart111's mouth until we can reach a point in time where Stalwart111's bullshit vendetta against me is revealed as the petty bullyboy tactic that it really is.
• In a nutshell, Stalwart111 believes he doesn't need to actually read NCORP guidelines because he *just knows* what it's supposed to achieve and if the wording disagrees with his opinion and someone has the temerity to actually implement the guidelines according to the wording, he'll take a shit on them. That is actually what is going on here, and I'm not putting up with it.

There's little room for a meeting-of-minds when we *still* see comments like "What we've seen at AFC is HighKing acting like a one-man deletion discussion, forming a view of guidelines and implementing that view without community involvement." As I've said, Stalwart111 has had his opportunity to present actual real evidence which he has failed to do. After several days, he has failed to point out even a single sentence from NCORP which he can say is being misinterpreted. He's started a discussion about "Not all Interviews are Primary Sources" at the NCORP Talk page but his interpretation of the word "frequently" is batshit crazy. If the roles were reversed and that was my interpretation, he'd have a point about abusing NCORP. As it is, he's been banging his drum making a hellalotta noise but when pressed to provide actual sections or clauses that are being ignored/misinterpreted, he moves the goalposts of the discussion. Having been on the receiving end for the past few days, his tactic is to shout loudly in the hope that other editors share his views/opinions (regardless of what is written down in NCORP - in fact, studiously avoiding any discussion on the actual wording of NCORP) to build a "mob" of support based on opinion/feeling. With respect, he can go fuck himself while he's on his imaginary high horse. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

...and I'm going to give you the same advice I gave Stalwart111. Find some common ground. Don't just AGF because it's a policy, but actually think about what he's campaigning for and why. You two aren't the first to have passionate and fervent opinions about inclusion/deletion topics, and really finding any amount of common ground, or some sort of meeting of the minds, is really the best thing for both of you. Walk a mile in each others' shoes, if possible, no matter how much acrimony there is right now. Of course, it's easy for me to say that, as someone without any emotional investment in the topic, but I really do sincerely recommend it. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate very much *why* you're saying that and I understand *what* you are saying. But until and unless Stalwart111 recognises that his misplaced complaints about me personally and backs off his personal vendetta, this isn't a disagreement about any particular *topic* as you've implied above, this is me defending myself against a personal attack. He's made a lot of comments about how I've "misinterpreted" NCORP. Days later, we're still waiting to see what exactly he means because he's been unable to point out one single paragraph/sentence that I've misinterpreted. And rather than say "Hey, you know what, I can see how somebody would reasonably interpret the NCORP guidelines like that. My bad. I think NCORP needs to be changed" - whatever - then that's a good first step. It isn't reasonable to ask me to "fund some common ground" and AGF when I'm being personally attacked constantly, with no let up whatsoever. I didn't start this. But I'm damned if I'm going to let him repeat his bullshit without challenging it. Also, I'm neither an inclusionist not a deletionist, I implement our guidelines. At worst, I'm pedantic, but I'm consistent. My AfD stats and AfC stats for the past 3 or 4 *years* speak for themselves. He's the one that is wwaaaayyy out of line, I'm simply calling out his bullshit. Unless and until he can accept that my interpretation is *not wrong*, that it is *fully supported* by the *wording* of NCORP (or points out where I fucked up and did, in fact, screw up), we can't reconcile anything. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @HighKing: as someone who's been vaguely following this saga from a distance after recently closing a related DRV, please can I echo what Jclemens says above. Take a step back from the personal aspect of this, look at the issue from Stalwart111's point of view (as indeed Stalwart should do for you) and see what common ground you can find. Certainly there are overly personal comments on both sides but right now, looking just at this exchange here, it seems that here you're the one doubling down on the personal attacks more so than Stalwart, whose comments in this thread seem to be mainly focused on your disagreement over NCORP rather than being outright personal attacks (correct me if I'm wrong on that, I may have missed something). In any case comments like "he can go fuck himself while he's on his imaginary high horse" and "I'm damned if I'm going to let him repeat his bullshit without challenging it" are clear personal attacks on your part and have no place in any discussion, however much you disagree with the other person's point of view or think they've treated you badly. Similarly, labelling Stalwart's opinions as bad faith and invalid just because you're in this disagreement is not acceptable. Back off from that rhetoric please, and both of you try to get down to the fundamentals of your disagreement, because otherwise this is on a fast track to WP:ANI. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You say in this thread Stalwart111 is "mainly focused" on our disagreement over NCORP rather being outright personal attacks? Certainly not at the start and maybe I've been sensitized by the constant accusations. I do think his most recent comments here are less inflammatory but still have enough needle which I believe is unmerited. I also accept I've used strong language but I feel it is 100% justified and in my opinion, not as ad hominen as what he said about me. My choice of language might be coarser but as an ad hominen attack it isn't even close to what he has said - also it is not my normal language and I believe it shows how very strongly I feel about how he has conducted himself throughout this episode. Maybe his recent comments have opened the door (a crack) to perhaps (he'll need to confirm) accept that my interpretation was not a mis-interpretation or a perverse interpretation but were following the guidelines (perhaps not in the way he would have chosen) as they were written. I've said many times I'll implement whatever is written in the guidelines. If Stalwart111 believes the overarching objective is to be "inclusive", well I'm not a mind reader, I'd like to see this stuff in a guideline, accepted by the community and put into practice. I'd like to see closing of AfDs apply the correct NCORP guidelines without it being a "supervote". If some editors believe that some of this "stuff" is "common sense" - well lets remove any potential ambiguity and write this "stuff" into a guideline. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My intention here was clear from the outset. In fact, I don't think I could have made it clearer. I saw editor conduct I believed was damaging the project. Ongoing damage would normally be a matter for ANI, so that more experienced editors and admins can assess the situation, make a determination as to whether the original concerns were valid, and take action to rectify the problematic conduct. In this instance, there was no ongoing threat to the project as the editor in question had "taken [their] leave", blanked their talk page, and replaced it with a "goodbye" message. So, focus turned to fixing the problem. Thus my original comment here, seeking the advice of an experienced editor and former admin (in place of ANI). I explained why I thought the rejections were problematic. Jclemens didn't weigh in on the substance, but said enough to confirm my view that if what I thought was happening was indeed happening, it would require input from others. I raised my concerns at NCORP, given it was the guideline I viewed as having been misinterpreted and misapplied. Later that day, HighKing un-retired (while leaving his talk page blanked, which I respected) and his first response to my thread started, " I don't know why you appear to have a problem with me personally but its wearing thin.". This was never personal, in fact I ended my opening remarks there by stating clearly that, "I don't think the editors responsible are being deliberately disruptive". It was intentionally pluralised. My interpretation was, as I explained above, that HighKing had had a rough couple of days at DRV and AFD, frustrated that his view of the application of NCORP was at odds with the community (which extended to suggestions that he be trouted - not from me - for bringing that article to DRV at all). I saw his conduct at AFC in that context; both of the above rejections and a couple of others came a short time after that DRV thread was started and several other comments I highlighted were made as that discussion continued, and continued to devolve into strong consensus against HighKing. Which is (again) why I approached it the way I did. I can accept that in the context of the pile-on at DRV, the rejection of his edits at NCORP (again, not by me), and a couple of other AFDs where he was one of the lone voices for deletion, my concerns here and then at NCORP might have been the straw the broke the proverbial camel's back. They weren't meant to be that way, and again, I thought that we were dealing with legacy edits from someone who had become fed up and thrown in the towel, making some pointy AFC rejections on his way out. I stand by my view of the rejections themselves, but I would hope HighKing can see my concerns for what they were, as they appeared to me, in the context of his editing and actions at the time. If only as an olive branch, I speak fluent Australian, and see HighKing's use of the word "fuck" (and other such things) as tasteful seasoning sprinkled on otherwise impassioned self-defence. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: thanks for your message, and I've spent some time in Australia myself so I'm aware that calling people things like "fucking cunt" can be seen as a term of endearment over there 😊. However, be that as it may, I'm going to have to pull you up on one aspect of this, namely your remark that HighKing was engaging in "editor conduct I believed was damaging the project". Clearly you and HighKing have a difference of opinion on the application of NCORP, but it's also clear that HighKing isn't alone in their view of how it should be applied, and neither are you alone in your view, so I don't see this as anything other than a good-faith difference of opinion on your parts. As such, you really have two options - (1) attempt to bring more clarity to the situation through discussions at NCORP, with maybe a well-phrased RfC to try to give more solid grounding to the question of how NCORP should be applied at AFD and AFC, or (2) accept that you are never going to agree, and simply let things take their course; some AFDs will be kept, and others will be deleted, based on who shows up to them and the case-by-case evidence at each AFD. That may not sound brilliant, but it's the way WP works in most cases anyway. What you both need to stop doing, however, is assuming bad faith and throwing insults at each other, (and I'd include the "Australian" insults in that too, just for avoidance of misunderstanding). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it can. Honestly, I don't think the difference is as stark as it might first appear. I don't believe he is completely alone in his view, of course, but I will say that he has been completely alone in his view in a number of specific, recent AFD and DRV discussions. Now, being alone in your view in those contexts might not help to build consensus, but it really isn't problematic. You are free to hold an outlier opinion in a discussion and your opinion is unlikely to change the result of that discussion. It's why we have WP:CONSENSUS; so that no single opinion dominates decision-making. The difference, and I've leveled criticism elsewhere at the AFC process for this reason, is that that at AFC you can be completely alone in your view, and nonetheless have that view prevail. There is no discussion and no consensus. The nature of AFC is that decisions are unilateral. In that context, the outlier view becomes the only view and it very much changes the result. Now, that's not to say anyone with an outlier view should be prevented from reviewing AFC submissions (and broadly, I don't know what the solution should be). But, yes, I felt it was damaging for someone (who seemed to be in a particular state of mind) to jump from a discussion in which they acknowledge their view is at odds with the community, into a process where they can apply that view without community involvement. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You are still misrepresenting what happened at the DRV and the sequence of events that occurred. The DRV was about how an AfD reaches a conclusion/consensus and how a closer "weight" the !voting. Please stop trying to imply that the DRV was concerned with my *interpretation* of NCORP being "at odds with the community". It wasn't and you own comment at the DRV was about how consensus was formed not the wrong guideline, it's just a guideline anyway, not the wrong interpretation of consensus, and not the wrong close. Also the "trout" comment was in relation to what was perceived as my "bludgeoning" the process (presumably for filing the DRV).

Please stop saying that my view is an outlier view which is "at odds with the community". It is one thing to be seen "at odds" at DRV with how a closer looks to see if a consensus exists but you continue to misrepresent that my interpretation of NCORP is "at odds" with the community which just is not true. I posted a link to my AfD stats and you can see overall I am in line with consensus. Slightly better in this snapshot than [your own AFD stats ^{which I find is richly ironic given this discussion and a "you gotta laugh" moment}. You should also be aware I largely *only* participate at NCORP-related topics so those stats are for NCORP, a guideline I know very well (which might be why I appear to be pedantic in my views). I note your stats show you've only recently returned to AfD in July 2021 after a break going back to May 2015 and your stats also show you participate in a wide variety of topic areas (which might be why you have more general overview of guidelines). I would also wonder why for someone is appears to be expressly concerned with perverse interpretation of NCORP you didn't, instead, notice the company you've been keeping and jump all over editors such as Eastmain, Andrew Davidson or NemisisAT. Could it be that they pump out Keep !votes regardless of whatever guideline applies and some of their stats are barely better than random. Their activity is coordinated too (this is connected to my concerns about how to close an AfD)? You might think I'm being unfair to ask that of you but you should check the company you keep and where the majority of "Keep" !votes are coming from in particular in circumstances where you level an accusation that my interpretation is "at odds with the community".

Please also stop perpetuating the myth that the sequence of events was that I "jumped" from the DRV into AfC as a sort of "throw the toys out of the pram" tantrum. As I've already stated, throughout August I participated in the AfC cleanup and reviewed over 100 articles with little or no fuss or criticism. I know you checked back over my editing history so it is difficult for me to understand why you formed that opinion and continue to perpetuate it - I don't think you'll see any inconsistencies between the recent AfCs and the ones completed in August.

Please also stop with what you *think* happened because the assumptions *you* made about my "state of mind" are wrong. I've already explained these issues to you so you're still either not reading what I've said, not understanding what I've said, don't believe what I've said or ... you tell me? This continues to frustrate me greatly.

And look, I don't want to flog a dead horse, but contrast your latest comments above that you "don't think the difference is as start as it might first appear" and that you "don't believe he is completely alone in his view" with comments you made at the start of this "disagreement" such as stuff^{deleted, serves no purpose for this discussion}.

At some point I'm hoping that you'll accept that your criticism and personal attacks of both my "interpretation" as being "against the consensus of the community" and/or that I was deliberately disrupting the project because I'd had a (shocking) revelation at the DRV about the reality of how AFDs are closed was and is without proper foundation and was/is misplaced. After that we can kiss and make up, no hard feelings here. Please feel free to sprinkle your comments with Australian (I'm Irish so no translation required). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your broader AFD statistics are commendable and I use that tool quite a bit (it is linked from my user page; and I have just realised the interaction one needs updating). Honestly, I didn't do a deep-dive into your editing history, nor did I look at your statistics, or go back through anything beyond a few days. It wasn't relevant to my immediate concerns and I had no interest in establishing a "long-term pattern". But I can't help you to see what I saw if you can't see how your words and actions could be seen by others. Those AFC rejections were hours after you started that DRV and the handful of AFDs I noted at NCORP (with the very similar !vote-comments) were all within a couple of days (while that discussion was ongoing). I think its academic to make the distinction between "interpretation" (the word I used) and "application" in this instance, but I'll concede your comments at DRV were more focused on the application. Ultimately, though, manner of application is itself an interpretation of guidelines. And the distinction doesn't change your conclusion there which didn't seem to have any double-meaning. But if you didn't intend for your words (and actions soon thereafter) to be interpreted that way, I apologise for interpreting them that way. I can only say they seem unequivocally clear to me. And again, I can only point to the things I said to reinforce that this was never personal. Making it so would have been pointless in the extreme, because I didn't believe you planned to return to resolve it; this is something I believed would need to be resolved in your absence. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've pretty much bottomed out on this issue and I'd like to put it behind us. I'll respond to your last message above and you can have the last word by responding to this. The intention of this posting is to clear up any remaining issues and to throw a last light on some final misunderstandings that I can see still floating around.

You say "It wasn't relevant to my immediate concerns and I had no interest in establishing a "long-term pattern". But I can't help you to see what I saw if you can't see how your words and actions could be seen by others." This appears to be the genesis of this row and from where it spiraled. Sure, based on what you've said I completely understand how you (and possibly any other editor) could have developed concerns. I also believe any initial concerns were exacerbated by your misinterpretation of what was going on (in my mind) at the DRV. Bottom line - you got it wrong and made it worse by continuing to maintain you were right and continuing to press the "bad conduct" angle and the "perverse interpretation of NCORP" angle.

You say if I hadn't "blanked" my Talk page you would have initially pinged me there and that it was never personal and you believe it was something that would need to be resolved in my absense. That really doesn't stack up for me. I blanked my Talk page on 1st Sept at 17:52 (in my TZ). You pinged me about 12 hours later at the NCORP Talk page on 2 September at 06:17. Why ping me if you thought I was "retired" and wouldn't respond on my Talk page? By that time you had also looked back over my editing history (much more than the "beyond a few days") as your post includes diffs from edits about 160 edits previously back to 21 August. So you went looking back on my editing history but not to try to establish a "long-term pattern" but for a different purpose...

You've also insinuated above that the final comment I made at DRV supports your view. For the final time, stop. It doesn't. I was solely addressing the method by which AfDs get closed. The "lump" that was knocked out of me was two-fold. First, the "trout" for "bludgeoning the process" followed by the comments about "deletionism's resurgence" and "dismissed with prejudice" which were personal comments from experienced editors that I have a lot of respect for. But mostly I was crestfallen because of the amount of time I put into NCORP-related AfDs, seemingly now pointless. I'm not a fly-by-night !vote dropper. I make a big effort to read all the references and chase down obscure ones. Often at AfDs I'll post a small summary/analysis of every reference. It takes a lot of time. And what I saw was that none of that mattered because a closer doesn't read any of the in-depth analysis or weigh it, a closer doesn't even have to bother with whether any of the !voters were quoting from the "correct" NCORP guidelines. Most disappointing of all was the realisation that a simple "Meets GNG" or "Fails GNG" !vote has the exact same weight as a length examination of references when it comes to closing an AfD. This realisation made me question the amount of effort and time I was spending at NCORP-related AfD especially in circumstances where certain editors (I've pointed to some above) are serial !voters with no rational and regularly "game" the system. This has nothing to do with "interpretation" or "application" of NCORP per se, only with the process of closing. I'd like you to drop the bat. Your assumption about what I said and the context of what was being said here is also wrong.

Finally. I can see you've made an "apology" of sorts (through gritted teeth). *If* I didn't intend it that way *then* you apologise for interpreting it that way (but that qualifying the apology by emphasising that you still believe you were correct in your interpretation as it was unequivocally clear to you) but you know what? I'll take it, apology accepted, line drawn, I also apologize if I've said things which rubbed you the wrong way. No excuse, writing online is notoriously difficult at the best of times and I'm not the best at it. You believed you were correct. You believed my interpretation of NCORP was perverse. You believed I was damaging the project. I say you should have been more careful, there's lots of things you can do better in future. I've no doubt we'll meet each other at AfD. Please feel free to ping me at my Talk page to trash out any differences as forcefully as you like and I'd like to think that I can do the same at yours. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I pinged you, as I explained there, because it was the right thing to do. I didn't expect you to reply, but nor did I think it appropriate to start a discussion that was about your editing without the courtesy of informing you, no matter how futile. Again, I was considering taking the matter to ANI where notification is compulsory, so a ping seemed like the minimum requirement.

It's not a reserved apology nor is it through gritted teeth; it wasn't personal and it wasn't intended to be personal, so I apologise for those things I included that made it more personal (or seem more personal) than it needed to be. You have ascribed to my actions a lot more feeling or emotion than I could possibly muster for something I saw as serious, but routine.

I accept your explanation of your comments at DRV, in fact, I have multiple times now. All I can say is that my reading of them informed my decision. I can accept your explanation, but it doesn't change my interpretation after the fact.

Not that it matters, but I don't recall ever having used the term "perverse", mostly because that was never my issue or concern, and because it suggests a level of malicious vandalism that I disavowed in my first post. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk page owner here. Can I give the two of you a single bit of homework? I'd like to request that each of you dive into the other's contributions, whether through reviewing user page bling or going back through past contributions, and find one thing completely other than anything related (however tangentially) to the current dispute that you find praiseworthy or admirable about each other's contributions to Wikipedia, and post a genuine, non-ironic note of appreciation here. By all means, you can continue on about the recent brouhaha, but I'd like to ask that each of you take a few minutes to do this, sincerely and earnestly, before you return to it. Would you each do that? Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(tps) - bonus points to whomever can find the most good things to say about the other and hopefully end The Song That Never Ends. :) BOZ (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is difficult, more so for Stalwart111 I'd say because most of my activity is narrowly focused around NCORP-related topics. Also, Stalwart111 is only recently back after an extended break since 2015 and it is questionable whether it makes sense to go back that far. So - I think Stalwart111 comes across very well as an "uninvolved referee". For example at Talk:Armeno-Georgian War there was a brewing content dispute between two editors that bordered close to breaching 3RR at times and Stalwart111 got in the middle and slowed everything down with clear explanations and, more importantly, a clear process for resolution. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a first step; even a modest one is progress. Stalwart111? Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to do exactly what you asked me not to (sorry, but not really) and talk about HighKing's work with regard to NCORP. Because it is precisely because of his enthusiasm for it that I came to the conclusion I did. I didn't spend a lot of time looking into his edit history (really, I didn't) but I have done so now. In fact, I spent a couple of days getting involved in other things so that I could have a proper look. Having had my attention drawn to his AFD record, I can't help but be impressed by his contribution there. I tried to find a specific argument in a specific AFD, but decided that would undersell it. The quantum of his contributions clearly lean in one direction; to rid Wikipedia of loathsome promotional spam. And its an effort I cannot possibly fault. There are a great many talentless corporate hacks who might otherwise have cashed a cheque to fill our project with advertising, were it not for HighKing's diligence. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey, WP:IAR applies everywhere on Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughtful response. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Not fully unicode compliant

See User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive024#Ref desks edits and commons:User talk:Mysterymanblue#Signature, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That's weird. I'm wondering if there's some other way to do things; don't want to discount what's already been tried, but turning a signature into a redlink is a really annoying side effect. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the stupid 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, I don't have a large number of options for editing Wikipedia. In fact the stupid 2019 encryption protocol upgrade almost knocked me completely off of Wikipedia, for both viewing and editing. I complained about it at the time (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 178), as did others (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 177), but no one particularly seemed to care. I might feel more apologetic in other circumstances, but I'm not sure how much concern I feel towards someone who decided that his username would be the "three Sinhalese consonants that correspond roughly to my initials" just because they could. Since Wikimedia chose to implement a change which would basically cut me off from Wikipedia until I bought a whole new computer (which I've done) and also get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer (which I haven't yet done), I don't consider mangling vanity Sinhalese consonants in a user signature to be a very major faux pas... AnonMoos (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana

Good morning Sir! After seeing your justification in [5], I felt that you are the only person who could help with Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. Sir, there a lot of people in Wikipedia who are very WP:BITEy and do not allow the new editors to contribute in Wikipedia even when they do not cause any disruptive editing. In Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana, almost everyone tried the level best to make the article as notable and efficient for a Wikipedia article but I do not know why every reviewer gave the comment not notable. Sir, it is not really possible to give only reviews about that show as a reliable reference because not every Indian newspaper gives only reviews about the tv shows in their articles. It will always have to do with launch dates, actors and other stuff. I don't know why the reviewers do not understand that and don't give the article any chance? I can understand the problems caused by disruptive edits of people but does that mean this show Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana does not even deserve an article in Wikipedia? This show has been on-air for the past two months and has satisfied both WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG but the reviewers are giving some or the other excuses and declining the submissions. They are saying that the people are paid and are promoting the show. Sir, I don't know about the others but I'm neither paid nor do I want to promote the show but I am a fan of the show. So I humbly request if you can please offer some help with regards to Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. If you cannot help atleast can you consult it to an administrator who can help with it? Thank you--117.193.129.18 (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Are you in any way connected to the show? Have you been offered any sort of payment by anyone to promote this show on Wikipedia? Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No I swear Sir, I am not offered any payment from the show producers or anyone else to neither to write this article nor to promote this show. The only connection I have with the show is that I am a fan of this show and I watch it daily on TV. If you want you can also check the location of my IP and also see where all I make edits. I edit almost all hindi serial shows articles and with the location of my IP you can also see that I stay nowhere near the show producers nor the channel producers destination. Infact I am just an ordinary student. If you want I can also reveal my identity and the exact place where I stay. Before taking leave, I would like to say that it was very thoughtful of you to look into it. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this help. Thank you--117.193.129.18 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Rpa revert

I’m fine with your revert. I know it probably looks somewhat suspicious but I wasn’t trying to smear anyone and added it before I knew the deletion review even existed. I’ve simply been a little overzealous with redacting obnoxious behavior but I’ll try not to do so from now on. Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And that's what AGF is all about. Glad it wasn't anything, and I should probably have checked the timing of the DRV opening which would have been an issue in your favor. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Show Me the Father

On 8 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Show Me the Father, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Show Me the Father is the fourth consecutive film produced by the Kendrick brothers to earn an "A+" grade on CinemaScore? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Show Me the Father. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Show Me the Father), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Resuscitations

I know it's a long list, but it is sectioned, so I am letting you know that User:BOZ/Games deletions is nearly finished in case there is anything you would want to give a shot at. :) (I'm going to start a separate list for D&D fictional elements, probably next week, since that will be very long.) BOZ (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I took the time to look through that, and I'm afraid I don't have any non-primary sources that are going to help with any of those. I think some of the supplements could have been standalones, but redirected to the parent games is in most cases OK, if not optimum. Thanks for the invite, but I just didn't see anything on here I'm likely to end up helping with. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hi, I am checking some older talk page protections and I'm sorry if I already sent you a confusing notification. In your case this is about Talk:Yelena Dembo. My understanding is that even if you are no longer an administrator, your opinion on the matter is still important. You can answer me here or at User talk:176.247.159.174, where I am keeping a more stable list. Thanks. 176.247.137.106 (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want my input, you need to register and have a username before discussing matters related to page protection. You may be philosophically opposed to registering, and that's fine, but your choice to be not be part of the system severely limits how seriously Wikipedians who do register accounts will take your concerns or input. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for both respecting the “delete” consensus and treating the “keep” side with sensitivity at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 15! Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It's sad that taking a few minutes to empathize with the well-meaning but against-consensus editors is exceptional, but I appreciate the encouragement to keep trying to humanize such disputes, and accept accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal

Chicdat removed your proposal on the grounds that the period for new proposals had ended, but seems to have neglected to inform you of this. (It's now on the talk page, though I'm not sure what the point of that is.) Since your proposal shares all important features with the previous proposal 6E, I invite you to support 6E instead. --JBL (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

JayBeeEll Huh. I'm sure there's a note in there somewhere to that effect that I missed, but it seems counterintuitive to advertise an RfC for wider participation... and at the same time have new proposals be untimely. Thanks for your advice, and I may indeed support 6E, but no, I don't believe 6F as proposed by me shared all the important features, else I wouldn't have proposed it separately. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I attempted (before it was removed) to query you about that, so let me do it here: your proposal 6F had 4 bullet points, it shares 3 of them with 6E, and your explanation for why 6F would be an improvement over the status quo only mentions the 3 points they have in common. So, uh, what's the important difference? --JBL (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The mandatory desysop'ing period. Full disclosure, I'd like to end admins-for-life, and force every admin to spend 6 months of the year without privileges, so that people can remember what it's like to have to ask someone else to do things for you, and not simply have the power to block, protect, delete, etc. I mean, yes, yours is the closest to mine, and I like it in general, but I don't know that I would call it quite equivalent. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks -- I agree they're not exactly equivalent. I think I was clearer in the other post, and now there's been more discussion by others, so if I have anything else to add I'll do it there. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for proactively engaging. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Family Research Council

Your unilateral removal of longstanding, well-sourced material from the Family Research Council article lede, inclusion of which has an explicit community consensus established by RFC, is wildly inappropriate sour grapes and violates policy. That your proposed addition of material to the lede has been challenged does not permit you to ignore established community consensus. If you want to remove mention of the SPLC from the lede, you'll need to open an RFC and change that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Not in the least. I agree that what I removed should be in the lead, but it cannot be at this time because including it as it was is WP:UNDUE. There is more coverage in the article on the attack than the non-attack parts of the SPLC designation, so including the latter without the former would be UNDUE even if they weren't intrinsically connected by the words of the gunman. I continue to try to improve the article's balance despite your objection to making the lead reflect the balance of RS content. Consensus, assuming for the sake of argument such did exist, does not trump policy.

Amending after reading the RFC you linked in your revision: That RFC was 9 years ago and in the same month of the shooting. The world has changed since then and so can consensus. Wikipedia does not run on stare decisis. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to attempt to change that consensus; unilaterally ignoring it is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Every appeal to the authority of consensus makes it seem more and more like you have no actual argument. Please take advantage of the below request to actually put together an argument why the SPLC-inspired shooting should NOT be included in the lead despite ongoing RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's an invitation, NorthBySouthBaranof: convince me why the 2012 shooting shouldn't be in the lead, in light of the 2018 WaPo magazine's inclusion of it in coverage of the SPLC's travails, and the 2019 USA Today editorial. I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Your recent editing history at Family Research Council shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're on at least your fourth or fifth revert at this point; self-revert or I will file a 3RRNB report. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I'm not sure which edits you're referring to. The vast majority of my edits have added material, rather than deleted anyone else's. I can see that 00:30, 11:42, and 21:44 (my clock is in Pacific Time) are reversions--although the removal of an errant cn tag is hardly much of a reversion--but I don't see a fourth. Which would you identify as such and have me revert?

On a more personal note, I would encourage you to avoid anything with a potential WP:BOOMERANG impact on yourself. You're obviously not happy, and I've invited you to explain why, which you still haven't done. Please, do so. And again, I invite you to edit collegially by avoiding templates. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

As you haven't edited in an hour, I'm going to assume you've headed off to bed, as I am going to do as well. That would push any 3RR that depends on that 00:30 edit into stale territory well before I wake up, and since I have a full day of patients and meetings tomorrow, I don't anticipate significant editing on the article. It will be interesting to see how other editors engage and again--let me know what you really think, please. I can't address your underlying objections unless I know what thy are. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is a discussion at WP:ANI related to your behavior at Family Research Council. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

While it's certainly your right to seek outside review, I think this is an unfortunate choice. I would rather have seen you articulate a policy-based objection that could be discussed. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

WP:NORG is policy-compliant?

Hello, I saw your comment here: higher standard than the GNG is required for companies, which itself not a policy-compliant position (my highlight). I'm intrigued.

One could argue that WP:NORG is perhaps self-inconsistent. It starts off with These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals which seems reasonable. But then it goes into some pretty stringent criteria, WP:SIRS, Significant coverage of the company itself, etc. We therefore see arguments against notability for organisations with 100-year history, 0.3 million employees. and listed on stock exchanges, all because nobody has written enough analytical pieces about this sort of 'fixture' company. This seems less than rational.

So it would be good to make WP:NORG more policy compliant. I can see the rationale behind WP:MEDRS, and WP:WHYN make sense. But the WP:NORG stuff seems less justified. Where to start doing something about this? Chumpih ^t 10:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is a lack of common sense. There are a lot of people who are very good at following rules without understanding the purpose behind them, and these people tend to be drawn to various places where they can do the most harm, like Public Health or Wikipedia deletion discussions. I had an otherwise sensible and presumably intelligent editor nominate a cardinal archbishop for deletion just because he was French and sources weren't in the English Wikipedia article. There's simply no way to train people to be smarter than that. In fact, the article still sucks because the editor who nominated it for deletion would neither ask for nor accept help finding sources. I could have improved it easily, but haven't and won't: it wasn't and isn't my mess to fix. So, until editors take some responsibility for when they fail to execute WP:BEFORE well, you're going to see various nonsense nominations. The community tends to not view inappropriate, unfounded nominations nearly as problematically as rebukes of them; it needs to. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I can get behind that. Thanks for the reply and the food for thought. It makes sense for there to be some chain of reasoning, some maxims, principles and philosophies rationally leading to some practical, applicable rules. But with all this stuff, there's a problem: the borders of the sets are poorly defined; the rules are imperfect, and the language imprecise. There will be things that fall just one side or just the other of whatever rule is made. Even with the most enlightened judges, there will be differences of opinion about how the rules should be applied, with corresponding debates where people care perhaps more than they ought to. Is it worth adjusting the rules to improve the situation? Perhaps should we accept the situation and move on - I don't know. Chumpih ^t 23:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

blowback

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 9:02 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety <ca wikimedia dot org> wrote:

Dear Ikip, This communication is to notify you that the Wikimedia Foundation (Foundation) has globally banned you from Foundation websites and platforms (including but not limited to any site listed at www.wikimedia.org, mailing lists hosted by the Foundation, Wikimedia Cloud Services, and the Wikimedia blog) as well as any in-person events sponsored or funded by the Foundation including any events hosted by Wikimedia Affiliates using funds from the Foundation. You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists. This ban is placed against you personally, not against a particular username. It applies to any alternate accounts that you may control and any accounts you may create in the future. Furthermore, you may not participate as an anonymous user (“as an IP user”). We understand that this communication may be surprising and difficult to read, and we regret the necessity. We are taking this action due to the concern of the safety of our users and the integrity of the projects, and in compliance with the WMF Global ban policy. Based on our review, we determined that you engaged in behavior that violates our Terms of Use specifically section 4. We have received credible complaints regarding your conduct in Wikimedia projects which we feel on review requires this action. As part of this process, your username will be listed as a globally banned user here :https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_globally_banned_users. Our normal practice is that only account ban information will be made public while other information communicated to you in this notice will not be published elsewhere. If necessary for the defense of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia projects, Wikimedia users, or the public, the Foundation reserves the right to later publish this information. Under some circumstances, you have the option to appeal with the Case Review Committee. You can read more about this process here: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety/Case_Review_Committee>. The role of the case review committee is to provide an opportunity for a second review by community members. If the case review committee does view your case as eligible, they have direct access to our investigation documentation for review. While we regret that we are unable to provide any evidence around this investigation beyond the information provided here, you have an opportunity to reach out to the case review committee if you wish for this type of review. Sincerely, Trust & Safety Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.122.151 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that meta:TOU isn't linked here. Looks like breaches of section 4 can mean anything from socking, to paid editing, to uploading child porn. It's stunningly vague.

Regardless, farewell. Best wishes finding your joy somewhere else. I wrote WP:YANI when I was too emotionally involved, as some bit of therapy. I hope you're able to move on. I know I've shared your frustration, if never your methods. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In reply to the since-deleted and likely eventually suppressed follow-up, I am a much healthier person because I don't keep Wikipedia grudges against people, and actually have a worldview that aligns with both AGF and a habit of forgiveness. I am not going to join anyone's "revolution" because Wikipedia is a hobby of mine. When you get to see the dividends paid by investing time as an actual medical provider treating real patients, things get just that much less important. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethan Skemp

Do you see anything that could help with Ethan Skemp which is at PROD? BOZ (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

ENnie Awards

ENnie Awards was just PRODded and unPRODded - I will see what else I can find for that one. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you not allowed to add stuff to articles until the CCI is resolved? Cause that would suck. I have work, other work, and grading to do this weekend so not a lot of time of Wikipedia work... :-( Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a specific prohibition against adding content, but I am trying to be as minimal as possible in terms of adding content anywhere - just in case. I think if I am very careful, I should be OK. BOZ (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Lapis alectorius

I've PRODed this, it was linked from MM's works template, but as you can see, the article is just a tiny stub about some occult topic, with nothing about his works. I doubt there is much to rescue here, but feel free to double check. PS. I deprodded this, I was too hasty - this is notable but not in the context of MM's works. Instead, I've removed it from Template:Michael Moorcock (as the article did not mention anything related to MM)._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that I don't object to at all. It looks like dictdef to me, and I don't recall any such thing ever being any major part of any of his works I've ever read--which was pretty much anything published up through 1990. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Hi Jclemens, just wanted to let you know that I saw tthe rationale that you presented to Sandstein in December prior to a potential DRV, and I wanted to let you know that your assessment was broadly correct. Because of that AfD discussion, I opened a discussion on whether MOS:POPCULT applied to whole articles (consensus is that it doesn't), and recreated this article in prose format (and I actually found many sources beyond the ones brought up during the AfD). I guess I'm writing to let you know that I believe you were right in your DRV notification, and this is coming from someone who often disagrees with your AfD assessments. So, I guess it wasn't all in vain. Cheers! Pilaz (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. On one hand, I feel for the overworked admins who shortcut the deletion process because there's too much work to do, but on the other hand, they're deleting the contributions of our dwindling volunteer editor base, which leaves the True Believers, POV pushers, and UPE'ers to create new content. I believe in the final analysis we will find that Wikipedia only ever worked because of Fancruft. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Water Rats characters

Hi there Jclemens. Just stopping by after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Water Rats characters to say if you (or anyone else) would ever like the text restored to your userspace to consider merging some content into Water Rats (TV series), just let me know and I'll happily restore it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, as the closer of the discussion. I hope you're staying well during these crazy times. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Ajpolino in what way do you believe you correctly closed that discussion? An alternative to deletion was identified and not discussed by anyone but the nominator, let alone adequately refuted. In case it's not obvious, I, like the nominator(s) in similar cases, do not have time to address the issues. The difference between me and them, however, is that I expect that our deletion policies be followed as intended, even for articles that "have potential" (i.e. currently fall far short of desirable). Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators I believed there was a rough consensus that the article be deleted. Unlike many AfDs I come across, the comments here seemed (with just a couple exceptions) on-topic and based in the relevant policies. Alternatives for deletion (here those would be improvement, or merge) are always considered, and preferred, but they're not mandated and sometimes aren't the most appropriate action. And here folks seemed to explicitly consider the topic of the list inappropriate, and the content of the list not worth merging. I see your preferred outcome is different, but I don't see an alternative reading of the AfD that makes much sense. As you well know, you're more than welcome to post at Wikipedia:Deletion review for more opinions -- or at WP:ANI or even at the new WP:AARV if you think my actions require broader review. As I said above, I hope you're well. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I am indeed quite well acquainted with DRV, participating there regularly, but I would rather continue a side conversation here. Your perspective is pretty typical among administrators, but I think it's inappropriately biased towards deletion rather than alternatives. Per WP:NHC, non-policy-based opinions are to be discarded when closing discussions. WP:ATD-R is among the WP:ATD options, and is appropriate in this case, and is the outcome I wish more administrators would consider. In this case, there is indeed consensus that article should not exist as a standalone article at this point. But is there a consensus that it should never exist? I think not, and that's why I would encourage you to consider undeleting the file and redirecting it to the show. That way, non-admins can see the content, and have a basis for which to expand it to meet guidelines. No matter how many people said "delete", if there is an appropriate target (pretty obvious in this place) for redirection, then per policy a deletion would need to overcome the presumption that a redirect is better. If it's G10-11-12ish, that's a pretty low bar to actually delete it. But if it's simply non-notable, then it's something that could conceivably be added to later, found notable, and restored to mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting this a few days later, I think you're correct that having the page history remain visible to non-admins is a preferable option. I've restored the page as a redirect to Water Rats (TV series), updated the AfD closing statement, and left a note at the talk page. Thanks for the note, sometimes a challenged decision is a much-needed jolt for all of us (or at least for me). Best, Ajpolino (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Super Genius Games

Do you see anything more for Super Genius Games? BOZ (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Blanking page

Looks like the bot was not archiving undated entries, so I'm clearing them without further comment. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Signpost DRV

I had been closely following the Signpost DRV with an eye to possible closing it. I wouldn't really disagree with anything you wrote in your close. However, I think the totality of the close fails to reflect the consensus reached. By my count around 60% of editors endorsed the close, though some did as you note express mixed feelings. However your close is, by my read, entirely focused on the concerns and thoughts of the those who feel something was wrong with the close and little mention is given to those who support it. Now some of this was justified by those who also endorsed it. So again I don't disagree with anything you've written, but it does fail to note the support, on the whole, the closes had and thus I think needs revision to accurately reflect that discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Completely legitimate to point out that omission. I've added an addendum intended to address the concern. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I came her to thank Jclemens for a very thoughtful close. There was clearly a lot of work put into summarising the discussion, and regardless of outcome, I want to thank Jclemens for that diligence.

I accept @Barkeep49's comment about the 60% endorsement, but it seems to me that those endorsements came in two different flavour: a) unequivocally support the close per SNOW; b) SNOW was misapplied, but endorse to avoid re-opening the MFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think B is a little more complex than that BHG but I definitely acknowledged that those people were there in the same way that those who don't endorse the close came in many different flavors which I think Jclemens did capture well.

@Jclemens thanks for your willingness to amend. Could I suggest that the first line bold be changed to something like Problematic close, but endorsed (no further action needed). As amended you now note the numerical endorsement but again my point was that the thinking of those who endorse it was largely absent from the text (outside of some discussion of Speedy Keep criteria which was more in depth than the DRV had itself about that criteria) and a numerical addition at the end seems to just reinforce the idea that you weighted those people away which is not what I think you did. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hrm. I mean, I did close it as not requiring modification, which is accepting the conclusion as not wrong enough to change after the fact, which is both your and my read of the discussion. I think "Problematic close, no consensus to overturn closure." might get a little closer, and be couched in more traditional DRV language. I've gone ahead and done that. I am strongly attempting to be diplomatic and point out that everyone was a loser in this back-and-forth, and I think outright stating "endorsed" loses the nuance of BHG's group B. I think if there was one bit of consensus in the entire discussion, it was "SNOW was not the right thing to do when it was used." which was seen by participants across the endorse/overturn spectrum. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

DRV Closure

Firstly, thank you! Extremely thoughtful and thorough close with excellent summaries. Secondly, one clarification regarding this:
this was an improper NAC in that the closer lacked awareness of this foreseeable outcome
Whilst to me it did feel highly cut-and-dried when I was closing it, but I knew that using SNOW was risky which is why the close was quite a bold move on my part. I was very expectant that should it be contentious, the closure would just be reverted and the discussion continued (especially as it was an NAC), or in this case a DRV would take place. However, I didn't expect thermonuclear Wiki-war across several venues with everyone, including myself, everyone beating the horse beyond death and into a slushy pulp of nothingness with no consensus on anything, holier-than-thou debates, constant abject refusal to listen to each other and work an actual solution, and a total grotesque mess ensuing. Maybe assuming people wouldn't get as riled up as they did was a flop on my part, but a good lesson - bold moves can result in bold messes!

Anyway, thank you again. Best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 01:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep. You live and learn on Wikipedia by stepping into minefields, as I've learned firsthand. Or, in a best case scenario, you can learn by watching other train wrecks develop, but that's not much fun either. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as the substance of what I wrote... I suppose it would be more accurate to say that, had you understood the extent to which this would blow up, you likely would not have done it. That's AGF'ing, of course, but regretting stepping into a hornets' nest seems to me to be a given. I don't think the original statement is inaccurate enough to require a revision, as I expect most others would read it in the way I just expanded it. Does that seem reasonable? Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It is without evidence that controversy was increased. The close was keep a week ago, and a week later it is still keep. That's a quicker settlement than if you have two weeks of MfD and DRV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

And as I think about it further, there is little to nothing to learn from your extended discussion of NAC in the close (except perhaps as a bad example). NAC was barely mentioned by anyone in the DRV - it was basically irrelevant to the DRV (probably for several reasons, including that it was taken over by an Admin before the DRV.) Your NAC close is therefore not well done in that part, because it is not your place as a closer to give an extended essay on your thoughts on NAC, when it's barely mentioned in the DRV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; it's appreciated. I had thought I'd noted that (most respondents didn't comment on the NAC status), but felt it needed to be addressed in the close. Sorry it didn't seem effective. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with User:Alanscottwalker, " NAC was barely mentioned by anyone in the DRV". I and others did, said what needed saying, and it was almost self-evident, to the point that it didn't need repeating. Many other irrelevant things to the DRV were repeated, repeatedly, does that make them more important? The BADNAC was fundamentally important, except for the bad MfD close, the MfD would have played out, and there would have been no DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. You were one of the few, as a noted. Your argument was particularly irrelevant and generally poorly done. You seemed to want to send a personal message to what you called a new editor to not participate. Which is self-defeating for the project. DRV is not for personal messages, and NAC was most certainly not fundamental - as we have seen, that close was upheld. The MfD was by conclusion of the DRV good enough, which means that substantively the MfD got it right a week ago and the whole thing came full circuit in a week, which is certainly not longer than a week of MfD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

New editor, never participated at MfD before, does a SNOW close on a controversial discussion at 50 minutes. That was the basis and the core of the DRV. First participation should not be to “bold” (his word) close, or the place will go to anarchy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You forgot, "new" editor got it in effect right, so right, it was adopted by admin immediately and upheld in review. Getting that right outcome, is the purpose of all our process, and is the opposite of anarchy, it is efficiency, not bureaucracy, and fine outcome. If "old" editors are determined to be stuck in endless looping, thank goodness, for new editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ed6767 was a bit overbold, and you're right, that's the full extent of my criticism. Overall, he conducted himself very well, and I'd like to encourage him to continue to do the right things. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I knew that using SNOW was risky which is why the close was quite a bold move on my part ... which is precisely why it was a bad move. See WP:BADNAC#2: "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."

Ed6767's acknowledgement that "using SNOW was risky" amounts to an admission that Ed knew it was "likely to be controversial". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I find it difficult to disagree with BHG's comment directly above. NACs must be pristine or not performed. I've seen a couple of BADNACs this year that ended up as fait accompli in favor of the closers' positions. Collaborators gaming WP:CR. I'd like a way to spank what I view as bad actions in such cases. I looked at WP:NAC and couldn't find an easy way to shoehorn "speedy SNOW stupid" into BADNAC. I'm fully aware Jclemens has a history of surviving minefields; I have strong confidence when such an editor threads our sort of needle. I'm finding the two threads on this page illuminating. BusterD (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call the experiences 'surviving,' although I do count myself wiser for them. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you did fine, fine enough, not perfect, some irrelevant and other poor reasoning (eg. you do not need an MfD to merge, etc.), but fine enough. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you were referring to any one of the controversies that ultimately led to me being outed and forced out of the admin corps back in 2013. No, this one hasn't been bad in the least. Criticism has been fair and on point, and there is simply no way to close a DRV like that without making someone unhappy. I seem to have reasonably succeeded in taking an Irenic route. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Churches of Christ has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. It does tend do acquire a bunch of random opinions, so I understand and agree with the scrutiny. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Demon Princes novel series

The 5-way merger of the Demon Princes novel series occurred as a result of an AfD discussion. We observed that the articles for the individual novels were WP:JUSTPLOT, with the exception of a couple which also had a review or two. I proposed merging them all into the main page and others approved. The main series page now has a short synopsis of each novel, as well as the review information from the pages which had reviews. I believe this constitutes a proper encyclopedic treatment of this series and see no reason why the mergers should have been reverted. As of now, they're back to being WP:JUSTPLOT, which is against policy. I'm willing to discuss this here or on the article's talk page, where I've linked a discussion I had w/ another editor about the same issue. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You voluntarily withdrew the AfD, which never covered any of the individual five novels affected by your merger in the first place, and withdrawn AfDs have no force or effect either. Not to be pedantic, but what did you think "withdrawn" meant? Per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, you don't get to re-do mergers that anyone else has contested. Of note, I went to unredirect everything, but found that the five individual novels had already been done, presumably by the other user you spoke to. Jclemens (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So what's the best way to deal w/ the individual novel articles, three of which are still WP:JUSTPLOT? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

On the talk page, multiple reviews have been posted. I assume you're competent to create a reception section? I would be happy to coach and review your work if you're not comfortable doing this. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Done it several times. That said, I feel like I've done enough damage. I didn't think anyone cared that much about these books, which is why I felt confident in redirecting them. These articles obviously mean a lot more to some people than I thought and I'd just as soon let those people deal w/ them. No point in ticking off the stans any more than I already have. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:TIND. There are a bunch of non-neurotypical people who obsess over Wikipedia's perfection and can't stand that it's not perfect, so rather than actually correcting issues, they argue that everything imperfect should be deleted. It's sad, really... they are the biggest threat to editor retention, in that they drive away contributors. Go look at my first edit back in 2006--it was an unsourced IPC addition to the Major General's song. I daresay I came a long way since then, but the ability to add little tidbits like that made Wikipedia *fun*. Now, we're all grown up, and a legion of blue meanies spend time kicking down sandcastles... or at least that's what it looks like to those who like adding things like that. Serious folks don't have much empathy for the frivolous and seemingly juvenile efforts of the recreational contributors, and this cultural disconnect manifests in an inclusionist/deletionist debate. So, you get to decide where you fit on this spectrum, but my encouragement is that if you want to see Wikipedia get better and more serious, then please learn to improve articles as you go, rather than expecting anyone else to. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely fall more on the deletionist end. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You deserve it 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! But... what did I do to deserve it? Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Just you being a cool guy, I guess? ;) BOZ (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You comments

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Preliminary_statements#Statement_by_Jclemens

I just wanted to say that I thought #2 was spot on. Too much "Wikipedia the game", and not enough article improvement.

Only speaking for myself, I will say that I find it difficult anymore to try to have consensual discussions with other editors in regards to article edits. I'm happy to roll up my sleeves and join in a collaborative effort, but I keep encountering situations that go well beyond ownership. There seems to be a deeply rooted institutionally supported intransigence. "If I just listen and talk with someone on a talk page, they'll eventually go away and I'll do what I want later". It's like certain editors have created a formula to use our various policies of collegiate open-ness in order to prevent collaborative building of the encyclopedia. Even if what they are doing is not only contrary to various policies, but flagrantly so. "I want it, and that's all that matters".

I don't like the idea of putting on my admin hat and doing revert, block, ignore. I'd rather give someone a chance and try to explain the policies they are violating, etc., so that they might develop into a better editor. But to say they are disinterested, puts it mildly.

It does, I am sad to say, make it rather easy to be less-then-motivated to prioritize editing on Wikipedia, and just stay mostly in reader mode, when real life allows.

Anyway, I just wanted to express that I liked what you wrote. And didn't think clicking a "like" expressed it well enough : )

I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I wish I was as good at identifying solutions as I am at articulating problems. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

>>> Extorc.talk 18:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but because I took an interest in one DRV topic regarding the notability of one individual Indian citizen, you somehow think that that article, or my conduct, are even arguably connected to this ArbCom case from 2007? If I'm understanding that correctly, that's among the most ludicrous notifications possible. I'll note that since I was an arbitrator after the conclusion of the India-Pakistan case, I am already presumably aware of associated case and associated sanctions, which makes this notification simply that much more ridiculous. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As long as that "citizen" happened to be an "Indian", the alert is justified. It clearly notes This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. >>> Extorc.talk 18:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, right--both to the "every Indian BLP is in scope" argument, and the "It's a neutral notification" assertion. Neither passes the smell test, and your assertion that they do demonstrates a ridiculous and untenable perspective. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND / No personal attacks

I saw your comment here. I think you made a fair evaluation of the AFD process and the debate between deletion, inclusion, and all the options in between. Everyone wants an encyclopedia filled with good articles and there can be reasonable disagreements about how to achieve that.

I have also noticed several times where your opinion on a deletion discussion has been outside of the consensus about what is suitable for Wikipedia, and the content is deleted/redirected over your misinterpretations of policy and/or evidence.[6][7][8][9] [10] [11] These are only the most recent examples where you have found yourself outside of the norm for how Wikipedia treats content.

My intent isn't to criticize you for being out of step with WP:CONSENSUS. My intent is to draw attention to what we consider to be "reasonable" disagreement. It is completely inevitable that every editor will find themselves outside of the general consensus, especially if they are wading into conflict resolution processes like AFD. Wikipedia isn't a game and we're not trying to keep score, but I think we are both "right" far more often than we are "wrong", and that makes us both basically reasonable. For myself, sometimes there is a consensus to keep a stand alone article despite my AFD nomination. I see article improvement as a win for the entire encyclopedia, and most reasonable editors should see it that way.

Where I think you have crossed the line into unreasonable is when you do the opposite of WP:NPA, and comment on the contributor, instead of focusing on the content. For example, asking an editor "how do you expect to be taken seriously"[12] has no constructive place in the discussion process, and only serves to heighten the dispute into something personal. Similarly, you are going against the advice at WP:NPA when you say an AFD makes me look bad, or call it a failure of my competence. Let alone feeling so strongly as to take the content dispute onto my user page. It actually takes less effort to focus on the content, and abstain from going after editors personally.

While I am here, it is also bad faith use of WP:BUREAUCRACY to demand people shut down processes in order to try to control the outcome. Especially when you are experienced enough to know that it's Wikipedia policy to allow those processes to continue until they reach a WP:CONSENSUS, and that your calls for a shut down carries zero policy weight.

Again, I think there's room for reasonable disagreement here. We have differing opinions about what qualifies for a stand alone article on Wikipedia. I am asking you to focus on the content, and I think that's a reasonable, request based on the most essential Wikipedia conduct policies. If you can't learn to focus on content, I'm going to have to ask you to disengage from content disputes with me altogether. Thanks. Jontesta (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jontesta, thanks for taking the time to write that out. Allow me to address the concerns in order.

First, just because something was closed in a way other than the way I advocated doesn't in the least mean I was wrong. That's one possible explanation, but the other is that local consensus was wrong, and policies were not correctly applied. Policies are not subject to consensus, once the community has enacted them. If the !votes are 100 to 1 to keep a copyvio, that copyvio gets deleted, because policy. In the cases you're talking about, ATD is policy, N is not, so if a bunch of people say "N not met, fails GNG" and one person says "Redirect per ATD"--assuming both sides are correct in their assessments--the policy-based outcome is to redirect. A lot of people don't like this; they're so set on Wikipedia being a democracy that they'll ignore policy just because the non-policy-based outcome is preferred, including far too many admins.

Now is that every time I've been overruled? No. Infrequently, I intentionally take non-consensus supported views because the encyclopedia benefits best from that input into the discussion. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and many popular outcomes that might be arguably policy compliant would be a bad thing for that end. The rule for that is called WP:IAR. You'd have to ask me on each case, really.

So, why did you bring that up? You obviously spent some time on it, and it's not clear to me why you bothered. Did you think it was relevant to the next point? I hope not, because it isn't: While you may see me participating in AfD debates (and DRV, for that matter) in ways that aren't congruent with consensus, you don't see me starting AfDs that make me look like I don't understand the topic to those with more knowledge of the subject area; you did in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz (2nd nomination), the AfD that started this.

Second, let's talk about that nomination. It was, and as of this writing still is, this. It consists of three sentences, each of which is wrong:

• "No WP:SIGCOV to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline." You may have been referring to the article in its current state, and I AGF'ed that you were then, and do so again now. However, that is itself not a policy-based standard supporting deletion, per WP:NEXIST
• "There are trivial mentions, but nothing to build an article that is WP:NOT just WP:PLOT details." Again, one can AGF that this is talking about the current state of the article, but the NEXIST issue still applies.
• "Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context." This is the incontrovertibly false statement. It in fact absolutely can be improved, because there is sufficient RS coverage. You imply that you searched for this. In my advice to you that you find objectionable, I specifically told you how I got Google Scholar to show me good results.

I'm sorry if you're offended by a post telling you how to improve your BEFORE searches. There's a good bit of Google-fu one can do to get better at AfD nominations, and I want every AfD nomination to be the best one possible--which means, in cases where the topic is clearly notable--that no such nomination is made in the first place. As you've noted, I've been around a few years, so I have plenty of advice to give. If it's unwelcome (shrug) that's not particularly my problem: my obligation to the encyclopedia is to help you improve to be the best AfD nominator you can.

Third, let's review the WP:CIR comment. To review: You nominated a clearly notable topic, and made demonstrably false statement that, if believed, would prejudice the proper outcome. In doing so, were you lying--intentionally making false statements to achieve a desired end--or simply wrong? AGF says "wrong" so that's the basis on which I respond to you. Now, you're wrong in a way that anyone familiar with the topic should know and avoid. C.S. Lewis is ridiculously thoroughly discussed academically, almost to the level of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and anyone who wades into a Lewis-related topic should either know this, or discover it during research. Likewise, you as nominator should also know that there have been multiple video and movie adaptations of Prince Caspian, the novel in which Miraz is the chief antagonist, or discover it during research--such as by reading the captions on the two photos included in the article. What is the upshot of all this? Your nomination makes you look bad no matter how you slice it. I mean, I suppose it's possible to write an AfD nomination for Miraz that's less bad by being less inaccurate about the possibility for improvement (say, by trying to rely on TNT)... but you didn't write one, and haven't, to date, modified your original nomination statement to correct the errors.

That brings us to the fourth point: you failing to AGF why I suggested you withdraw the nomination. I do not like to make people look bad; it just tends to get them to want to dig in, as you noted. Notice how I didn't say anything about you as nominator at all in my refutation of your nomination: it was neither needed nor beneficial for that forum. That's why I brought it to your talk page. I added three relatively well followed DELSORT lists to the nomination page, significantly widening the audience who is going to see how bad the nomination actually is. Not wanting to cause you to be on public display for an entire week for such a bad nomination statement, I took the initiative to warn you this was coming. To the extent that you didn't understand my suggestion and its implications, I'm sorry it wasn't more clear.

As of now, you do not have the option to withdraw the nomination, because Piotrus has suggested a redirection. You did when I posted the advice to you to do so. You're now in for almost six more days of people seeing what you wrote, and, if conversant with the topic, thinking less of you for it (in my estimation, of course. I am ethically bound to act in your best interest as I see it, even if I might be wrong).

Understand that in no way did I suggest you withdraw the nomination in order to secure a favorable outcome; I did not then, nor do I now, believe that the survival of the Miraz article is in any serious doubt. My only motivation in suggesting you withdraw it is to save face among other AfD participants. After all, you can delete feedback, with or without archiving it, from your own talk page at any time, so my comments there are only staying there because you choose to keep them.

So, if you would like, you can request that I not post to your talk page again; I am obligated by both courtesy and our user talk page rules to honor such a request.

But doing so is in no way a suggestion that anything I wrote to or about you any sort of a personal attack, nor that it represents any sort of BATTLEGROUND behavior. Your deletion input is in need of work, and I attempted to help you in a way that you do not appreciate.

What I would rather see, actually, is you focusing on the real problem here: Your nomination was inaccurate and inadequate. Jontesta, in order to help me better help other people with similar aggressively wrong nominations in the future, would you please reply, either here or on your talk page, explaining the process you went through to come to the conclusion that your nomination was a good idea? Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that per my rationale in the AFD I was pinged above, I do not consider Jonesta's nomination to be particulary wrong. The article may be notable, but fails to show it, and borderline warrants WP:TNT. Redirecting it for now is reasonable; second of course to seeing someone actually rewrite this, as it has potential, per sources found. But keeping this in the sorry sad state is not, IMHO, good for the project. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You choose to specifically endorse the third sentence of the nomination? I thought you valued accuracy and transparency more than that, Piotrus. It's one thing to miss something; it's another thing to miss something and declare that there is nothing more to find ever. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

An apparent failure of BEFORE is noted, but it doesn't mean bad faith (that BEFORE wasn't done), it an also mean that the nom doesn't have good digital literacy skills. That said, the latter does warrant asking the nom to up their game here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agreed with the latter, that's what prompted this discussion. As far as the former... "I can't find anything" is always an acceptable thing to say; "Nothing relevant and suitable exists" is a logically more problematic statement to prove, and should not have any significantly different effect on a deletion discussion--I cringe when I see it and know it's wrong, and cringe again when I prove it. There's plenty of room for disagreement on "is this non-trivial enough to count?" or similar questions, and that's where AfD discussions work best when everyone is sussing out collaboratively: We all get our individual opinions, but we are not entitled to separate facts. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lifemark

On 2 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lifemark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite the commercial success of previous Kendrick Brothers films, star Kirk Cameron said that Lifemark was unable to secure a distributor due to its pro-life stance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lifemark. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lifemark), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: your reversion of content at Lifemark

This edit removed the characterization of National Review, Baptist Messenger, World (magazine), and National Catholic Register as being Christian and conservative media sources. I was wondering what your objection to those adjectives might be, (the main meaning being that the reviews mentioned are not from the usual movie-industry sources like Variety (magazine), The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood). Also, that first sentence references the movie's Rotten Tomatoes score + the 5 critics' reviews there (Jackie K. Cooper, Michael Medved, The Independent Critic, Aisle Seat, NYC Movie Guru) but doesn't cite their actual reviews, or cite a link to RT, it instead cites the other reviews subsequently mentioned in the sentence. Shearonink (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Shearonink, thanks for taking the time to bring this up here. One quibble is that the removed description only applied to Rotten Tomatoes' reviews. On the basis of your feedback, I re-reviewed our essay at WP:ROTTEN (which is a terrible name, FWIW), and will be making further changes in the placement. A similar discussion was in process on the article talk page a few weeks ago, but fizzled out. Original Research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." I don't disagree that most of the reviews for the movie have been in conservative or Christian sources... but that's not a conclusion drawn by any of the RS I've seen... and I've been looking essentially since the article was created. Right now, the sources in the article represent all RS published viewpoints in a manner that's as WP:DUE as I can make it: Christian and conservative sources, plus Bloomberg, are used because that's who reviewed or commented on the movie. The bigger question is why didn't the "usual movie-industry sources" review a movie that opened in the top 10? My hypothesis is that this was a de facto media blackout due to the sensitive nature of the content, but there's no RS that says that either, so it's not going into the article until and unless some RS points it out. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because it was technically in movie theaters for only 2 weeks, during its theatrical run had been completely a special event sponsored by Fathom, the first week was in 1500 theaters, and is now in approximately 800 theaters? (Keeping in mind that there are probably continuing special one-off screenings sponsored by individual Christian churches & anti-abortion groups.) Maybe because it opened the Friday after Labor Day and everyone hadn't come back form vacation yet?... I dunno. Also, even though Lifemark did crack the Top Ten during its initial Fathom run, the continuing per-screen average isn't particularly impressive with the first week being $562 and most recent stats (September 29th) being $62/screen. Besides, not every independent feature made in the US gets reviewed by the trades...it's just not possible. Shearonink (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It was actually extended for a third week of general theatrical runs through Fathom Events, but no RS picked up on that so our article says what it says. Box Office Mojo can give you a hint that that's true... but again, that would be original research to draw that conclusion. I think it far more likely there was an intentional effort to deplatform the movie, but all we have for that is the filmmaker's RS'ed commentary--no one else is out saying "Yeah, we wouldn't touch that" and so we end up with the reader left to draw his or her own conclusions from what is said in RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin#A mountain out of molehill?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?. 109.111.237.2 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Further commentary on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block/Evidence

As I've run out of room, and what I say doesn't have that much relevance to the flow of the case, I'm going to say it here for the benefit of TheresNoTime, in part because I believe my talk page is less watched than yours: I believe you acted in what you believed to be the best interests of the encyclopedia. I also believe your conduct violated not only every relevant bright line rule, but every good idea and bit of advice we give administrators, such that your continued possession of advanced tools--at the very least including steward, oversighter, or checkuser--is incompatible with the best interests of the encyclopedia. I understand that this might affect your employment, and I'm genuinely sorry that may happen, but ultimately you were the one with the tools and you made the choice to use them while WP:INVOLVED.

The situation was rotten, and I imagine quite personally painful and distressing. INVOLVED should have functioned to protect you from your reaction as much as it should have protected the two individuals whose privacy you violated. If you had run the checks while not involved, it still would have been wrong, but it would not have been an egregious act inconsistent with you remaining a steward and holder of other advanced permissions. You had no duty to act; you acted... twice (counting 3 CU checks as one action), fifteen minutes apart. You had an INVOLVEment and should have passed off any privileged action to someone else; you did not. Again, twice, fifteen minutes apart.

It's been almost a decade since I was doxxed and forced to turn in the tools, including checkuser and oversight, rather than be dragged through a case and risk both my employment as well as entirely possibly losing the tools anyways. That is still a painful memory, because I, too, had done what I thought was best at the time, and that is why I have both empathy for you as the one caught up in all of this, as well as those users whose private information you accessed.

Again, best wishes on whatever happens next, but I don't think maintaining your privileges here is consistent with the best interests of anyone. Indeed, if you get cleared by ArbCom and the Ombuds, the WMF may be forced to terminate you to mitigate their legal liability in case one of the users you checked sues them. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, Spartaz and I don't agree on a whole lot; we're at loggerheads to some degree or another more often than not when it comes to content decisions, while at the same time I respect his judgment and circumspection as a long-term administrator. This comment was a polite and appropriate way of letting you know that there's a serious problem that you need to address. Appearing to pick a fight with ArbCom while they're deliberating on whether to sanction your misuse of advanced permissions seems ill-advised; doubly so when the community response to the concern raised suggests that the answer is viewed as both obvious and uncontroversial. To answer an unasked question, your raising issues about CaptainEek on WP:AN after your case is already in deliberation does not make him INVOLVED nor require his recusal from said case.

I suggest reviewing WP:SBA (we don't appear to have a separate essay for "Suicide by Arbcom" so I'm afraid that's the best fit) for the benefit of both you and for those who have endorsed and supported your previous actions. If you choose to proceed down such a pathway, I strongly recommend resigning your permissions and employment now to end the drama, rather than behaving in such a manner likely to make that result involuntary. Such an outcome can only bring additional distress to people who were already distressed by the whole Athaenara situation in the first place. Please don't make them secondary victims again. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me and threatening my employment — this is becoming harassment, and I will formally report it as such if you continue. Thank you. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, dear. If you thought I was threatening your employment at the WMF, you have my most sincere apologies. Your employment is in jeopardy from two things, neither of which has anything to do with me: I have no power, no particular standing, and no intent or desire to cause your termination. I will never contact the WMF to suggest, request, or demand your termination, nor will I ever suggest anyone else do so. I merely fear that--as someone who was Doxxed for less--you will get the same treatment that prompted me to resign my tools 9 years ago. Likewise, I've been an information security investigator and investigations manager for a Fortune 100 company, so I've seen what specific actions have gotten people fired in other contexts in the past.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, the two risks to your employment are 1) the aftermath of your own actions while INVOLVED, and 2) your failure to learn from or apologize for them. Let's not mince words here: your actions with the checkuser tool were arguably crimes in certain jurisdictions. I say "arguably" because Internet law is so haphazard, precedents confused, and prosecutorial discretion so rampant that the likelihood there would be a criminal complaint filed even if one of the affected persons complained is quite remote. Nevertheless, you accessed private data without authorization, which is technically a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. I've no personal knowledge of any employment agreement you may have with WMF, but I believe commission of a crime relevant to one's employment is generally considered grounds for termination under most such agreements, and goodness knows the WMF has plenty of money available for lawyers and an existing reputation as a scandal-magnet. If I were you, I would already have either talked to my manager, given notice, or both. Based on your on-wiki approach to the problem, I fear you haven't, and I worry that this is going to end more badly than necessary for you.

I hope you carefully consider this beyond the 3 minutes it took you to reply to my previous post.

No ping, as requested. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You are now accusing me of committing a crime, which I will be passing on to trust and safety. I am asking, again, that you stop interacting with me/giving me "advice" or whatever else you think you're doing here. Please Jclemens, I'm asking nicely. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm intending to remind you that specific actions you admit to having taken could be construed as a crime under certain statutes and legal theories in certain jurisdictions. As a computer professional with advanced access, I do not expect that I am bringing anything new to your attention, but it occurs to me you may not have lived through State of Oregon vs. Randal Schwartz as a system administrator like I did. If the knowledge that your past actions may constitute a crime is newly distressing, you again have my most sincere apologies: I neither write nor enforce the laws, and I have not and will not report your actions as a potential legal violation nor encourage any other person to do so.

Please feel free to report this discussion to trust and safety. It has been my sincere effort to point out reality while entirely complying with WP:NLT. I'll note that this discussion is neither in the ArbCom case nor any public noticeboard, and I really don't have any other more-private on-wiki venue in which to advise you of the potential consequences of your actions. I legitimately wish you nothing but the best going forward from this whole mess, regardless of how it turns out with any of the entities reviewing your actions.

Again, no ping, as requested, and I do not intend to respond further unless you request that I do, again, as requested. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a "reminder" by any stretch of that term. They've asked you to stop multiple times, and both of your responses were continued justification and expansions on previous unsolicited sub-par legal advice.

I recommend two things: 1) stop trying to provide legal advice, 2) if you continue to provide legal advice, please ensure it doesn't look like harassment, because this does. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vermont; pleased to meet you and welcome to my talk page. What brings you here? I thought my last response was pretty final, so I'm just acknowledging that I've read what you wrote and not commenting further, per TheresNoTime's request. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You should be indefinitely blocked for this transphobic hate speech and I think you know that. I wish you were still an admin so someone could take you to Arbcom and have you stripped of your status. Unfortunately for you, TNT will not be subject to any sanction because Arbcom is aware of the ramifications for it. The best you can do now is apologize in the ANI discussion we will start for your CBAN. Your apology won’t keep you from being banned, but it will at least allow you to save face. No pride for some of us without liberation for all of us (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you, someone who just registered in order to leave this screed. I see you've also defaced Spartaz' page. So the two possibilities are that 1) you really believe this, and 2) you're a false flag troll. Either way my reaction is the same: shrug. If expecting everyone, regardless of their background or personal attributes, to behave according to entirely neutral expectations they agreed to in order to achieve elevated rights on Wikipedia, constitutes the X-phobia of the day, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. If I'm CBanned for expecting privacy protections and administrator/functionary conduct rules to apply even in uncomfortable circumstances, so be it. On the assumption that you really are a very distressed individual, I wish you and everyone else involved nothing but the best, and hope you find more peace than is evident in the post. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/No pride for some of us without liberation for all of us

I'm sure we all have thick skin; I guess we have to. I'm sorry that we cannot do a better job of protecting our editors and administrators. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. It's been... goodness, I don't know how many years since I got that level of hate directed at me on-wiki, but in the intervening 8+ years, I've grown--and not just, for those of you who can't wait to mock my weight, circumferentially. I can still get cranky about people trying to delete stuff that should be improved, but this sort of brouhaha just makes me... sad. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I for one am glad you're still around, sir. Us ex-admins have to have somewhere to be. :) BOZ (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be remiss of me to not express extreme displeasure at seeing you attacked with my name and a quote for which I have much respect. Regardless of your opinion and position, I'm sorry you had to experience that, and I do not condone such behaviour. Love and respect triumphs over hate, and to stand up and protect others means to protect all others. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. It's not a random thought on my part that this is possibly (and by possibly I mean quite probably) an intentional attempt to intentionally inflame discussion. I really only included the well wishes and mentioned the possibility of it being genuine on the outside chance that there is someone in so much pain that that would seem a reasonable response to them. Trolls trying to capitalize on hurt to magnify hurt are far more common on Wikipedia. I agree that peace, empathy, and compassion need to flourish all around such sensitive topics as the actions that led to this whole challenging situation. Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Donald X. Vaccarino

Hi there! Just letting you know that the redirect at Donald X. Vaccarino is up for RFD. I figure you might have some input as the former article is in your userspace at User:Jclemens/Donald X. Vaccarino. BOZ (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I saw that, and was already considering commenting but don't have strong feelings other than "redirects are cheap and the vast majority of red links never get articles" which I may end up stating there. Dominion is the only game of his that I play, so I am not really a content expert. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, looks like someone actually DID take the prompt and create a proper article. That's good enough for me. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He IS a recognizable name in board game world. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Jontesta and deletion processes

Jontesta, since you have politely requested that I cease using your talk page to educate you in the appropriate use of deletion processes, I must necessarily and regretfully pursue any future perceived failures as user conduct issues. That is, when you've been told your conduct is inappropriate, and told me to stop telling you it is, I have no other option. Mind you, this doesn't involve our disagreements about notability or inclusion--you'll note that I have those sorts of disagreements with other editors all the time that don't involve me suggesting their conduct violates Wikipedia expectations--but rather 1) your repeated use of materially false statements in AfD nominations and 2) the inappropriate PROD nomination of articles where any competent editor should perceive that deletion would be controversial. What you have been asked to do, (for those viewing this who don't want to go digging) is 1) Make accurate statements in AfD nominations: don't say no coverage exists when it clearly does and don't say a BEFORE search found nothing when my BEFORE search clearly finds plenty to consider, and 2) Follow PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. with a reasonable definition of what expected might include, to include the insight gained from prior deletion discussions that attracted even one contrary opinion. I sincerely hope that the problematic behavior is never repeated and nothing further comes of this. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

JClemens, that's a barefaced misquote of me. Even for subjects where WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage, I prefer to make the safer claim that there is not enough coverage, or at worst, no WP:SIGCOV (as in "no significant coverage")[13][14]. If you were to cross both eyes you could maybe misinterpret me in this AFD.[15] But even there, I qualify the missing coverage as the inability to write an article that meets WP:N and WP:NOT.

I'm going to assume good faith that this is an error in your reading instead of of bad faith mission for you to mislead people about my position. Your behaviour is starting to cross into WP:HARASSMENT when I've asked you to stop coming after me personally, and focus instead on discussing the sources at AFD. Your behaviour would also be WP:GAMING the system if you're trying to achieve through WP:BUREAUCRACY what you've been able to achieve in honest AFD dialog with multiple editors.

I'll make one more good faith attempt to try to bridge this misunderstanding, despite the increasing evidence that you are motivated to misunderstand me on purpose. It's not hard to find AFDs where you are incorrect about the quality of the sources, and a consensus of Wikipedians agrees to remove content over your comments.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Rather than accuse you of bad faith, I want to give you the chance to show that you understand the Wikipedia consensus at these AFDs, even if you disagree. How would you describe the community consensus and our collective understanding of the coverage at these AFDs? If you're willing to provide a neutral summary of the lack of coverage that led to those articles being redirected/merged/deleted, I believe that will help us find phrasing that will avoid future misunderstandings. Jontesta (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Jontesta You've replied to me on my talk page, you don't get to complain about WP:HARASSMENT, absent any egregious behavior on my part. Also, I'm not sure where you think I'm misquoting you above, because I'm not quoting you at all--the only thing I quoted was WP:PROD.

You've mixed two issues in your response here:

1) When consensus doesn't always go my way, and

2) When you make materially false statements in AfD nominations:

"1" is not the topic of conversation and it has no bearing whatsoever on "2," and so I won't be responding to it.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mo (Oz) which you reference above but in which I did not participate, you have the same problematic construction you set forth in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz (2nd nomination), in which I did participate and notified you of that apparent deficiency. You had actual notification that Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. (and that is me quoting you), was a materially false statement with respect to Miraz. You never retracted, refactored, amended, or apologized for it--at least not that I've seen. If I've overlooked you doing any one of those things, please show me what I missed and accept my apologies in advance.

The proximate cause for my urging you to perform more accurately was that you referenced a BEFORE search in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mater (Cars) that, if it happened, was clearly deficient. Thus, it was either clearly a WP:CIR failure or an intentional material misstatement. AGFing that it's the former, you still have not replied to my query about how to help you conduct an adequate BEFORE search. You still stated There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic. as if it were a factual statement, rather than your personal opinion based on inadequate searching. You further stated This article is sourced to unreliable sources such as blogs, or promotional sources affiliated with the subject. and I demonstrated that a full 25% of the article, 5 of 19 sources, clearly do not fit that description. Further, by asserting that in the nomination statement, it suggests that you believe that having a number of primary sources in a fictional topic is an argument for deletion, which is not the case either.

The fix is simple:

1) Write more accurately. "I could not find SIGCOV for this topic" would be a way to express your findings in a way that doesn't pretend to be perfect. "I did not see enough RSed material in my search to expand this into a proper Wikipedia article" also helps. While you may not see the difference between these and what you said, there is--consensus runs on people not only telling it like they see it, but acknowledging that their knowledge may be incomplete, like I did above about you not amending your Miraz nomination statement that I have seen.

2) Learn to search. It's really pretty simple, and I've posted about it to you already, but somehow you keep not finding things that I find obvious. I can't help you if you don't tell me what you tried, which is why we're here on my talk page instead of yours: The last time I offered to help you improve your searches, you asked me not to post on your talk page any more. That's fine, but the offer still stands: Help me help you actually do reasonable searches that find relevant RS'es.

And, finally, there's the newer topic of inappropriate use of PROD. I've just seen that once, and hope it does not continue. Contra your talk page reply, someone else endorsing your PROD doesn't make it right or accurate, nor does an admin deleting it. If one other good faith editor objects to a PROD, it goes to AfD. If you could have foreseen that one objection, then you should not have placed a PROD in the first place.

To reiterate: You are welcome to keep posting here for help. The encyclopedia would be a better place if you did, and so my offer to invest my time in helping you stands. What I won't do is post on your talk page any longer if I see future problematic conduct in deletion discussions--instead, I have to decide whether further instances of these same issues amount to actionable user conduct violations. Yuck. I'd much rather simply try and help. I hope this explanation helps, and feel free to post clarifying questions about any of it. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Help request: Emsisoft

Hello, I found you via the Computer Security WikiProject and was hoping you could help me out. I posted a few requests on the talk page for Emsisoft, an anti-malware company, just to fix a few bad sources like press releases, blogs, etc. I have a COI (and declared it there too) - are you able to review them? Talk:Emsisoft#article update proposals Thanks. Sportsfan4646 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I've not worked in the field for over a decade. Appreciate the invite, but will not be able to help. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 9. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've looked over the DRV and I see nothing attacking you, BilledMammal. I believe Jclemens dismissed your arguments and labelled your perspective as not justified by Wikipedia policies, looking "rather Islamophobic and and an attempt to impose Western rationalistic and skeptical norms on non-Western topics." They called you out on your assertions. Totally in-bounds. Nobody made you look worse in the AfD or DRV than yourself. BusterD (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying someone's "perspective" looks "rather Islamophobic" is a personal attack; they can call out an editors assertions, but they must remain civil while doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you should swallow the trout you've already earned. Your perspective in these processes has been, IMHO, sub-optimal (if novel and bold). Blaming Jclemens for your poor decisions doesn't make you look any better. They merely called you out on them. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I am sorry that I view your sincerely held beliefs as sufficiently inappropriate that raising them as justification for Wikipedia decisions should be considered a user conduct violation. I understand how that can feel like a personal attack if you strongly personally identify with those views, but the attack--and I do not mind it being characterized as an attack--is directed against the idea that those who view the supernatural as real--that is, the vast majority of humanity, if not Wikipedia editors--are unable to be considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. I am sorry that expressing them in the manner I did caused distress, and I sincerely made my best effort to keep the criticism focused in the idea, rather than you as a person. If you see a way I could have done that better, I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood my position; people who hold these beliefs can be reliable sources, but works that express those positions can not.

My main issue with how you expressed it is that you claimed islamophobia, when I apply the same criteria to all faiths including my own. I think you could do better next time by not focusing on the current example and instead looking at the general position an editor is expressing. BilledMammal (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I did my sincere best to understand the nuances in your position, and I'm struggling to understand how what I said differs from what you've just reiterated. I agree that the application of such ideas doesn't just or exclusively appear Islamophobic to me, but would be characterized as religion-phobic in general if equally applied to all faiths holding supernatural events ("miracles") as historic. Thus, I have no problem with a book that asserts the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ or that Joseph Smith really did find and translate golden tablets being cited as a source either about those beliefs, or about a tenet of that faith unrelated to the supposed supernatural event. That's why they're religion and not science. Now, if an editor wanted to cite a verse in 2nd Corinthians to amend the periodic table (to make up an absurd example), I'm sure we're both agreed that would be a misuse of a source. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If I have understood you correctly the difference is that you believe I consider people who hold these beliefs to produce works that are unreliable sources regardless of whether they reflect these beliefs - regardless of whether they say Christians believe that Jesus resurrected Lazarus or Jesus resurrected Lazarus. This isn't true; sources that say the former, regardless of the beliefs of the author, can be reliable, while I do not believe sources that say the latter can be.

The issue I have with us considering sources that say the latter reliable is that it can lead to us saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that these miracles happened, because some of these miracles are only covered in such sources. I can go into detail on why I consider this problematic, but I hope I don't need to? BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Challenged "PROD" on Sally Carrera

Hello Jclemens! I noticed that you reverted the redirecting of Sally Carrera with the edit summary "Challenged PROD". I'm a bit confused by this as the article was PRODed 7 days prior to being redirected with no objection. So why did you challenge the passed PROD? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the PROD was wrong per policy? It deleted a major character in a franchise enjoying worldwide success, without a discussion or consideration of ATD? Feel free to send it to AfD if you can't find anything in a WP:BEFORE. Understand that the deleting admin deleted the article and then put a redirect in place, which is how I found it. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

CnaP

I've prodded Fairy (Artemis Fowl) and Magic in Artemis Fowl and I may be prodding more from this series if the articles are very poor (otherwise they'll be at AfD). Yes, those two can be redirected to List of concepts in Artemis Fowl, but seriously, they are very poor as a searchable term, and b, the target will end up and AfD shortly anyway, so why bother. Almost all of AF content I am seeing now is terribly fancrufty and unlikely to be redeemed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, saw those too, thanks. I have never seen AF, but I agree that those are not particularly great search terms. Do any of them have significant incoming Wikilinks? Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As far I can tell, they each link to one another via template and links, but it's all pretty much a walled garden of AF articles referencing other AF articles... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

... then collapsing them with appropriate merging and redirecting should be a manageable task, I would guess. One of my pet peeves with AfD is that it's too granular, when decisions would be better off made with a larger scope than on a per-article basis. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg (1981 video game)

Cool, what did you find? BOZ (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I just used the find sources news, saw a couple mentions of it, and decided that a full search in AfD was merited. I didn't take notes, sorry, and there's no guarantee anything I saw is really SIGCOV. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. BOZ (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Krakoa for deletion.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Krakoa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Nekivik (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy note about PRODs

I've prodded Matador (Marvel Comics), Jazinda and Southpaw (comics). Feel free to redirect or deprod if you think any deserves a hearing at AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

They could all be redirected somewhere. A list, perhaps? Obscure comics figures aren't my thing, but aren't there List of Marvel Comics Characters for pretty much every letter of the alphabet? Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, a redirect to the list of characters by letter is fine, I've no objections. Again, my goal is to attract more visiblity to this than a redirect would do, without wasting time of folks at AfD. Would you mind boldly redirecting these articles to the target proposed by BOZ before some trigger happy admins comes and deletes them? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I did deprod these, alone with Die Me, Dichotomy all of which you can feel free to redirect or AfD. There's probably enough to make a GA out of most Farscape episodes, but especially this one which was a season-ending cliffhanger where one of the series main cast appears to die. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

New comic prod: Young Marvelman. Feel free to redirect to the target I suggested unless you think this needs a full AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Naah, that's easily redirectable and obviously un-redirctable if anyone cares, so I just did it. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

New PROD with an easy redirect target I suggested if you concur: Kid Supreme _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Resuscitations

I was looking at your userpage yesterday and I noticed a section with this title. I've brought back quite a few articles from deletion or redirection myself (most of them video game articles, but a lot of other games and a few comics articles and other things) and that reminded me of one of the ideas I have in my pipeline for the future. I'm thinking of what it would take to have a WikiProject called maybe Revive or Restore with the purpose of bringing back articles with fixable issues. We have projects like Women in Red which encourages article creation, and ARS which encourages saving articles from threat of deletion, but as far as I know we don't really have anywhere that focuses on "What if this was a mistake and this article should never have been gotten rid of?" I'm not expecting a high traffic WikiProject, but maybe with a few dedicated volunteers at any given time with access to good sources, and a noticeboard of good potential candidate articles to work on, we can make an impact on fixing past mistakes? BOZ (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you right now I have no time for it. When I was involved quite heavily in Wikipedia, I had a tech job. Now, I treat patients, and I really don't get into long projects unless I have free time that won't steal from them. Right now, I pretty much never do. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that I won't have time to support it in any structured way. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all I mean, just what you think of the idea. I'm sure there are those with the time and energy to do what the rest of us only dream of. :) BOZ (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:1AM

Heh, I wasn't aware of that essay. When I clicked on the link, I was expecting to see something advising people not to post rants in the wee hours of the morning :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we've become such lazy typists (and by we I mean me) that we prefer the ridiculously short abbreviations over the longer, sensible, human-readable ones like WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. :-) Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Why ATDs matter

Ok, any TPS who may still be watching, this is why Alternatives to Deletion matter, and why delete-then-redirect is never a good idea after an AfD based on notability:

1. Nom makes an inaccurate statement asserting no reviews exist. In retrospect, that's an absurd assertion for a 2008 House, MD episode, but no one opining seems to notice.
2. One redirect !vote.
3. A relist, due to low participation
4. A second redirect !vote
5. AfD is closed as redirect.

The only problem with the whole evolution is that there were RS'es from IGN and The AV Club easily present on the first page of Google results the entire time.

Because this was redirected with history intact, it was easy to fix and un-redirect the article: the fundamentally flawed AfD (neither the nom or the two redirect !voters appeared to be aware of the reviews) ultimately did no damage. Had the article been deleted and then redirected, correcting this error would have required an admin and a whole lot more work. As is, this is a "near miss" from which we should all learn. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

...And, sad to say, we've had variations on a theme repeated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleep Tight (Angel). Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

...add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soda Tax (Parks and Recreation) to the list. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop posting to my talk page. Thank you. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Donaldd23, If I'm posting to your talk page, I'm AGF'ing that the damage your inaccurate nominations has done to the encyclopedia is unintentional. You haven't apologized, and I haven't demanded that you do so. However, if you aren't willing to listen to friendly corrections--and if I've phrased anything inaccurately or unnecessarily harshly, point it out and you will have my apologies--then the next step is WP:ANI. That's not a threat, mind you, but if I honor your request, ANI will be the only way to bring any future potential misconduct (and "errors" after effective instruction are indeed misconduct) to the community's attention. I'd very much prefer to continue AGF'ing and not do that, but if you maintain your request that I not point out your errors to you on your talk page, than I will reluctantly do so elsewhere if further inaccurate statements crop up in your deletion nominations. Your call.

In the mean time, I maintain my suggestion that you go through any of the episode nominations you've made ~2 weeks ago, and make sure that the nomination statements are accurate or amended. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to why you think that I made "errors" when the community agreed with me on several of the nominations and they were either deleted or redirected per the results of the discussions. You overrode the consensus by removing redirects that were agreed upon in legitimate AfD discussions. That seems more "inaccurate" than my nominations. I presented several articles that I did not believe were encyclopedic or notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia...which is the proper process. They went through the required time period, some were kept, some were deleted, some were redirected. That is why we have the process. Why do you feel that I need to apologize to you for following procedures of Wikipedia? If you feel that I should be brought up for discussion, then remember it will be brought out that almost immediately after the concensus for certain articles were carried through you reverted them. Those actions seem more like misconduct than properly asking the community to discuss certain articles at AfD.

I have slowed down my nomination process due to your concerns, but you still seem to think that I have not done enough. I appreciate that you want to make Wikipedia a better place, but "policing" it an telling me to apologize for going through the proper AfD process seems a bit like you are taking "ownership" of these articles...which, as I am sure you know, is not allowed.

With that said, I understand your concerns, but that is what the AfD discussions are for. Let the processes work. Thank you. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Donaldd23, thanks for explaining yourself, but I find your understanding of both the purpose of Wikipedia and the deletion policy to be lacking. First, the principle is If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. AfDs are for things where editing cannot improve a page. I demonstrated that three pages could be improved by editing, therefore your original nominations were not in the best interests of Wikipedia.

So what happened? You apparently did not follow WP:BEFORE, which is designed to filter articles out of AfD (note that it's part of the process directions for that page) that can be improved by editing. Worse, your boilerplate nomination for such episodes stated, Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for, implies that you did a search for RS reviews. Thus, when other editors saw your statement and saw no RS reviews in the article, they agreed that the episodes in question should be redirected or deleted. (As an aside, can I confirm that we both agree that any article on a TV episode with multiple independent, non-trivial, secondary RS reviews for that episode should be kept as an independent article?) I'll note that you didn't suggest redirection in your boilerplate, even though it noted In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show, indicating you were aware that each episode was part of a larger group (season or show) which would have been an appropriate redirect or merge target.

You did manage to conjure up a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the basis of not identifying the appropriate sources that demonstrated notability. That's not an actual reason for deletion, per WP:NEXIST. Wikipedia is not some MMORPG; our goal is that for every notable topic we will eventually have an article. There's no "points" awarded for "winning" deletion discussions--If an article that should be deleted is kept, or if an article that should be kept is not, those are both unencyclopedic outcomes. If a group of Wikipedia editors come to the wrong conclusion, the right thing to do is WP:SOFIXIT: that is, while I notified you of your errors and the resultant damage to Wikipedia, I did not seek sanctions for your conduct, which I believed to not up to standards expected of editors nominating articles for deletion, but I instead educated you about how your material misstatements led to wrong outcomes, and did so immediately after I fixed those outcomes. I have pinged each closing admin in my actions, neither to suggest they did anything wrong, nor to suggest that they take any action whatsoever, but rather to make sure each of them know that I am not reversing a proper consensus, but editing the encyclopedia based on evidence not present in the AfD discussion which came to the wrong conclusion. And I'll note I'm not doing this in an edge case--in each, I've found sources well-documented by the community at WP:RSP as reliable for arts and media topics, that, if included in the AfD discussion would have swayed reasonable participants.

I am genuinely sorry I didn't see what you were doing earlier and intervene earlier, but I'm kinda busy IRL (my wife thinks I'm working on my doctoral coursework right now...) and simply didn't see them on the DELSORT lists I monitor until the AfDs were removed from it as closed. The idea of my taking OWNership of the articles I fixed is unfortunate and unfounded. I'm pretty sure I've not edited any of the three before, and never seen a single episode of Parks and Rec.

I do encourage you--I think this is the third time I've said so--to go fix the messes you've made. If you don't see they're messes even after this discussion, then I'm sorry, but I think you ought to pause nominating things for deletion until you understand the 'why' of our processes. If you see an episode that you think should be redirected (because none of them should actually be deleted per ATD), post about it here on my talk page and I would be happy to help you go through a Google search and show you how to evaluate the sources, pick quotes for a reference section, and cite them appropriately. This is the curationist way. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Any reviews?

For Games (seaQuest DSV) and Dream Weaver (seaQuest DSV) before PROD/AfD? Note other episodes from Template:seaQuest DSV have been redirected as they were 100% unreferenced. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and redirect them. I've not been able to find anything--they're just old enough to be pre-Internet IIRC. Thanks for checking. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Episodes with reviews

I would like to get your opinion on some episodes. There are a lot of episodes that other editors have added the notability tag to that have at least 2 reviews cited. Is that enough for an episode to be kept and have the tag removed? I have seen others argue that it isn't enough and some have redirected them. I know 2 reviews are enough for films to be considered notable, but I cannot find a consensus on TV episodes. Here are a few:

All the Way (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Bring On the Night (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Entropy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Lizards (Heroes)
Living the Dream (House)
The Line (Heroes)
Him (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Help (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

There are more, but I wanted to give you an idea of what I am seeing. Some of these have been redirected in the past, but that was reverted. But, the notability tag remains as there is still some who question whether 2 reviews are enough. I would like to have it decided if they are notable or not and either have the tags removed or the episodes redirected. I have removed the tags before on episodes that have 2 reviews, and other editors claim that is insufficent and have restored the tag.

Thanks. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking me up on the offer, Donaldd23. So, I know more about Buffy than I do about heroes, and the one thing to remember about Buffy and Angel is that there's an entire academic interdisciplinary cadre who loves to write papers about Buffy/Angel/etc. topics--we even have a Buffy studies article about it.

Episodes with generic titles are some of the hardest to source, so let's tackle Him (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) first. I'm cooking at the moment, so I may be interrupted while I go through the steps I would take, but here goes:

First, are the tags even right? here is the revision where notability was added, and it doesn't even include the AV Club and Den of Geek references which we can see in the current version. Checking WP:RSP for Den of Geek, it hasn't been discussed there. I'd call it an RS, but let's err on the side of leaving the tag there until we have a clearly established second RS. Den of Geek isn't known as unreliable either, so we're not going to take it out. Next, let's look for sourcing.

Of note, we don't have to wait for an AFD to use the find sources template: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sometimes I add different parameters in once we get to looking at things if there's not enough there, but for starters let's look at this and see what comes up. Again, since it's a Buffy topic, we're going to do Scholar too.

I start with the basic Google search, not Google News--for some reason, some of our RS'es don't show up there often, especially for older episodes, so I rarely hit Google News for these topics. So what do we see? this comes up pretty fast, looks funny... oh, but wait, it's apparently user created content: a Blog. We could include it, but doesn't do a thing for notability. Screenrant, Tunefind, Rotten Tomatoes... all Verify, but that's not the issue. Plenty of Wikis, and sentences where one ends with "him" and the next begins with "Buffy..." but that's part for the course for these explorations. Slog through it looking for gold... but Google is surprisingly reticent, quickly saying that there are redundant results, without obviously giving up the Den of Geek or AV Club references. Odd, but not unheard of.

Now Scholar. Um.. Not much. A dissertation, books, and a paper or two not centered on this episode. Strikeout.

Let's go back to Google but add RJ, the name of a character uniquely appearing in this episode, into the search string. Hmm. Screenrant listicle, which is probably a good addition but questionably non-trivial: it's two paragraphs and pretty much just plot summary. I have to add The AV Club to the search string to find that article that's already in the article, which is weird but not impossible given Google's foibles. So let's Google again using OTHER pop culture sites to see what they have: IGN, Digital Spy, EW, Deadline, Variety, TheWrap, THR (digging kinda deep for something that's been off the air for a few years) turn up nothing. Screenrant only turns up the same listicle. Gizmodo turns up another listicle. I've kept the RJ search term in for all of these, not wanting to be buried in false positives. Adding in a comparison to Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered (a similar episode of Buffy) finds this which appears reasonable, but it's not indisputably RS.

So time to check NYT and JSTOR: Nothing each.

Books time. Yech, these are usually such a slog... but I'm finding nothing.

Time to stop and take stock.

So, after all that, that's three reasonable sources, but with 1+1+3, it's still not enough for me to say "Yes, every reasonable editor will agree that's enough to meet GNG." If the article is rewritten to include what it does have from Den of Geek and AV Club, along with the other listicles, that will probably survive AfD, but it's not a slam dunk. I'm really curious why I didn't find any book or scholarly mentions to speak of--that's not what I was expecting. This is all I've got time for for today, I will probably address more of these tomorrow--check back then. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to more insights from you. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

So, thinking more on this specific episode, Donaldd23 I don't think it's really possible to thoroughly clean off tags or blithely redirect the article. While it would be nice if everything were clean and tidy, this is one of the ones where it's so close to incontrovertably meeting NEPISODE, but not quite, that I actually prefer to leave them with both the notability tag and the extra sources. That may seem like a lame cop-out, but neither alternative are really desirable: If it's redirected, odds of anyone finding it and improving it are minimal, but it would be dishonest to say there's not still some question of notability. The good news is that this is exactly the sort of situation that WP:TIND was made to address.

To answer one of your other questions: is two reviews enough? Yes, depending on the reviews. Two in-depth, multi-paragraph treatments in RS'es acknowledged by RSP is pretty rock solid. But what if it's like the above example? I think Den of Geek counts--I went through the RSN archives, and both times it was discussed, there was minimal discussion but no one thought it was unreliable--but that's not the same as saying "the community has previously discussed this source at length and decided that it is (how) reliable on (which) topics. In cases where one review is RS but not RSP-level RS, I'd go with three or four articles. One of the other problems is that refbombing with interviews, listicles, etc. will make some people think there are no good sources, when there are, say, 2-3 good ones, and 10-20 "meh" ones that satisfy V but not N. In the case of episodes, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, metacritic... all are fine to link to, but can have a negative effect if there's proportionally so many of these or primary source refs that it takes a while to find the independent RS reviews. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Kaphwan is like that: I found one reasonably good RS hiding in there, but of the other 43 references, none readily jump out at me as a second RS. Meetings tonight, so I don't get to do another example dive for you--is this helpful? Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's do Bring On the Night (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), so Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. First things to notice are that 1) there are a couple of good looking reviews, but no reception section, and 2) the Den of Geek link is dead. So, this might be a simple fix: re-find one more RS review and create a reception section to end ALLPLOT objections.

An IGN source pops up first in a generic Google search, but it appears to be a Wiki rather than an authored review. Nothing jumps out at me in the generic Google search, except a couple of academic references that mention the episode... in passing discussions on other topics, so not helpful. Digging into Den of Geek... it's clear that the URL should work--it's consistent with the other re-watches they have. Is it just a dead link? Cut'n'paste into Archive.org's search engine, and we get this. That's great--looks fine, and the author had a bunch to say that's not just plot summary.

So, the solution is hiding in plain sight: Use Archive.org for the dead link, and then write at least a minimal reception section using both RS'es, and this one should be good to go. Donaldd23 are you comfortable picking out quotes and referencing an episode like this? As you can see here, I prefer "(author), writing for (website/paper), said (whatever).<reference>" twice. It's not terribly artful, but it can be interesting if you have an eye for the pithy things said in reviews, and demonstrates to the casual inspector that yes, there is enough RS commentary on the episode to be kept. Again, when I do this, it's almost always triage in response to someone else's nominating something for deletion, so I'm working as fast as I can to conclusively demonstrate notability, not get the episode to GA status. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will give it a shot on this episode! DonaldD23 talk to me 10:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at Living the Dream (House) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Looks like both the IGN source (should be great) and North by Northwestern (never heard of it before) review are dead links. So, off to the Wayback Machine first: NxNW, and IGN still are retrievable. So let's check Google just for one more RSP-class review, and YUCK. "living the dream house" is a terrible default search string, all false positive for dream houses, nothing about the TV show. So, I split the search string to be '"living the dream" "house MD" -wikipedia' and pretty rapidly come up with AV Club, which meets what I was looking for. So, two RSP sources and another seemingly OK one, all that's needed here, too, is to integrate the AV Club reference into the reception section, and that should be it. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Just added the AV Club review and removed the tag! DonaldD23 talk to me 20:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nac Mac Feegle (2nd nomination)

Friendly ping, in case you'd miss it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Balthier

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Balthier. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

American Psychological Association

Nice catch on my edit about James Dobson. In a source, I read a statement about "the APA's list of mental disorders" and I assumed this referred to the DSM. I was was incorrect. No, he was never a member of American Psychiatric Association (as far as I know) only the American Psychological Association. Thank you for your careful attention! Jno.skinner (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to have reverted that... It looks like my edit summary was understood as I intended it. Thanks for your work to update his bio. Once upon a time, I wanted to get that to FA before he died, but it never happened. You're doing good work in that general direction, do, please, keep it up. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. If you are interested in pairing up to bring the bio to GA or FA status, I also am. (The man is still alive, after all.) Jno.skinner (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm mostly cheering you on at this point. I have obligations that prevent me from substantially contributing to a FA push. GA might be doable... Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Elitist discussions

Hi, Jclemens. On WT:N, you wrote:

This entire discussion is elitist and more concerned with boundary-drawing to improve some authors' sense of self-importance. This is a recurring problem in Wikipedia, from POKEMON onward. This is not the same as a V or NPOV problem, this is a desire to limit topics to those for whom elite, socially acceptable articles--as in, NOT pop culture--can be written. It's a navel-gazing exercise which ignores our mission and arguably drives our editor retention issues: If you want a volunteer-driven encyclopedia, then you can expect some quality standards, but disallow editors from doing what they like, and they're gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I'm an elitist. I think that an utterly insane proportion of our biographies are biographies of sportspeople.

Personally, I'm British. My country isn't really known for its sporting prowess, so much as for unjustly conquering more than half the globe, exploring the world and stealing its resources, for its many wars with France, and for being the birthplace of the industrial revolution with many technological and scientific advances.

But as of right now:

• Category:English physicists contains 267 articles, including Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking.
• Category:English explorers contains 373 articles.
• Category:British Army generals contains 1,366 articles, thanks to the diligent efforts of WP:MILHIST.
• Category:Royal Navy admirals contains 892 articles.
• and yet Category:Olympic athletes for Great Britain contains 1,273 articles, almost all of which were written by Lugnuts.
• and Category:English footballers contains 23,852 articles.

Wikipedia literally has more articles in Category:Footballers from Bristol than we do in Category:British inventors.

My position is that we have a huge, deep, sprawling problem with sports biography proliferation and it desperately needs to be reined in.—S Marshall T/C 07:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a problem, but not one we can solve by creating barriers to people writing about what they want to write about. I'm reminded of a story, perhaps apocryphal, of a country that taxed its yacht building industry in an effort to stem wasteful spending. As the story goes, the yacht building business all moved out of that jurisdiction, all the middle-class skilled craftsmen were left unemployed, and the ultra-rich still purchased their yachts... just elsewhere. We can't guilt people into writing things they hate. I suppose we could pay someone, and certainly the WMF has the money to do content creation. Ultimately, I don't hear an argument that there should be fewer sportspeople articles, but rather that there should be more scientist ones. N is smack in the way of that, as highlighted in that very discussion, because we don't use highly cited papers as evidence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Stalking a bit, but I'm going to agree with Jclemens; it's not that we need to stop or discourage the sports bios, but that we need to find a way to encourage the scientist bios to be created. There are lots of notable scientists. Maybe there out to be a "missing biography" WikiProject to fill a need the way WiR exists to create more biographies of notable women? It could specifically exclude people in the sports or entertainment industries or whatever we already have a lot of, and focus on areas where we are deficient. People write about what they choose to write about, but sometimes some people need a push in the right direction and they will flourish there. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's right. We don't have the sources to write 20,000 good quality biographies of English scientists. What we could write is 20,000 biographies that say "Dr X Y is a molecular biologist associated with Z University in England", based on the scientific papers they're ninth co-author on. But we'd have a biography with no biographical information in it. In sports we do the opposite: we turn local newspaper articles about sports matches into biographies, even where we don't have any actual biographical information on the sportsperson.—S Marshall T/C 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so there's one of two problems here: 1) How we envision N such that sports bios are acceptable but scientist bios are not, 1a) since RS's just don't cover technologists, engineers, scientists, etc. like they do sportspeople and entertainers. Or 2) that despite equivalent coverage, we simply don't have editors who want to write about the non-entertainer (and yes, throwing a javelin in front of an audience is entertainment; throwing it at an enemy is a martial act) crowd. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a difference of scope in the relevant WikiProjects. MilHist write about battles and wars, battleships and tanks, swords and guns, and also generals and admirals. WP Medicine write about diseases and injuries, genetics and congenital conditions, treatments, therapies and drugs, and also medics. And the sports people mostly just churn out tens of thousands of biographies, although I'm sure they'd rush to point out that we have a few articles about individual matches or penalty shootouts.

I'm sure that as a former Arbitrator you will understand why we need to manage what other people write. We can't just leave them to it -- we as a community need to set norms and expectations.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Systemic bias - People are going to write about what they want to write about.

Should we really be wiping out work that people are willing to do - or creating ultra-stringent rules for inclusion of - because we want more of something else?

We've gone from an encyclopedia which includes the world's knowledge to seemingly only as much knowledge as certain factions will allow.

That said, is there something we can do about it?

As we build up more and more policy tracts limiting inclusion, (and I say this as someone who has contributed to, and experienced, a LOT of policy discussion over the years) I wonder where Wikipedia will be once the low-hanging fruit is removed. And the better question - Will that still be a Wikipedia that has the large usage it does now, or will the world move on, like they have so many other internet platforms.

I don't know.

But I am seriously concerned about Wikipedia's future.

I think we very well could be one Google fork away from becoming irrelevant. And that concerns me. Once the "wiki-way" is gone, I don't think it'll ever be back... - jc37 14:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Of things likely to cause an effective/enduring fork, I would not rate a disproportionate number of sports bios remotely high on that list. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

roflmao - oh sure, get all specific now. : )

I suppose for transparency I should note that in the past I was on the other side of this, and supported the idea of the Biography articles to be split to a separate Wikimedia Wiki, back before the BLP policy coalesced. I still think that that would be better for Wikipedia. I think our concerns about BLP have bled into how we treat things that have nothing to do with information about living people. - jc37 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)