Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 22 January 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of The Pointy End

Hi, I've started the review for The Pointy End. I haven't taken a thorough look at the article yet, but I left some preliminary comments on the review page. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will be working on GA feedback on multiple articles from that series this weekend. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a busy weekend! It's really good to see a member of Arbcom actively working on improving the site's content. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I try and balance my time between the behind-the-scenes work, and working on things that interest me. I volunteered for advanced responsibilities because I believe in the project, not out of some personal desire for power or responsibility. I get plenty of each in my real life... Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I only got to 2 of the 3 GA reviews I had pending this weekend. I've asked Sandstein to help out, and I see that he has done some work. I will try to get to the rest of the feedback during the upcoming week. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

... And I will be getting to this one with a vengance now that both other GAs have passed. Jclemens-public (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I have passed the article, good job. I'll see you around, but hopefully not because of an Arbcom case being opened against me :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I just added a photo of Sansa per your last request. I wouldn't worry about ArbCom cases--one generally has to be in a protracted conflict or do something truly egregious as an admin to wind up before ArbCom. Besides, if you did, I would likely recuse, and I tend to be one of the arbs hardest on editors whose behavior does not meet community expectations. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I did notice that about you in the lead up to the last election, and that was part of the reason that I voted for you. But, I forgot to mention, I haven't been following the Game of Thrones, but now that I've done this review I think I'll check out a few episodes. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I haven't actually seen any of the episodes except the pilot. I don't have cable, and I haven't been pulling sleepover shifts at a fire station while in my current phase of schooling, so I've had no access to them. I'm waiting for Netflix... Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment

As you may've noticed, I've just started an amendment thread about Mathsci's behavior toward and about me. However, AGK has raised concerns about whether an amendment thread was the best way to handle the issue. As I said to AGK in the amendment thread, I don't think going to AE is a good idea. In retrospect I'm unsure if I should've come to you about this initially, since you warned Mathsci about this specific issue pretty recently (). I'm unsure of where's the best place to deal with this, so I was wondering if you had any idea of what should happen if he were to do what you warned him about again (which he did). Any help or advice would be appreciated. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a "best place" to deal with the issue. I will say that we're looking to clarify behavioral expectations of editors related to off-wiki conduct in one of our active cases, which may shed some light on these sorts of issues, but that may not be timely enough. Someone from Arbcom will be in touch. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Should Hipocrite be asking me to confirm the accuracy of off-wiki information about another editor in public? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The limited consensus of arbitrators who've opined on the matter agree that you should not feel compelled to answer that question. No guidelines exist to prohibit the asking such of a question, but we may make it more clear that asking questions which the recipient is not obligated to answer is not appropriate, and that editors who have concerns should direct them to ArbCom, who are chartered to deal with such private information and associated issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This conflict is continuing to escalate. Mathsci is now trying to get me blocked at AE, and in the amendment thread, editors are calling for me to be site-banned and are repeating the same claims about me that Mathsci has been making. None of these people are uninvolved, and I complained about basically the same thing from two of them in my evidence in the R&I case almost two years ago. I think this shows why I'd like this conflict to be handled by Arbcom rather than by the community. It doesn't seem possible for me to make any request that others see as related to R&I, no matter how tangentially, without it resulting in this. It would be really helpful if rather than Arbcom allowing this to continue spreading to other users and forums, an arbitrator who's familiar with all aspects of the situation could take the initiative and propose a remedy that would finally resolve this dispute for good. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Which arbitrator would that be? My ignorance in the whole R&I arena has been pointed out to me repeatedly. I have no idea what all baggage is held by whom in this arena. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Cool Hand Luke and Roger Davies are pretty familiar with it, though it looks like Luke hasn't been on Misplaced Pages in a while. However I also think that a decision from any arbitrator, even one who's not familiar with the arena, is better than just leaving it to escalate amongst the community. I think it should be possible to make a decision about the current conflict even without knowing the details of the baggage of everyone involved. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of the two, Roger's clearly the more active. CHL's term ended at the end of last month. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please tell me whether Arbcom is intending to address this issue? So far I've been given some mixed messages. For example Silktork said in his response here that he didn't know if I should withdraw my amendment request and make a request for clarification instead, or whether it could be handled in the existing amendment thread. And it seems none of the admins at AE want anything to do with the issue, since Mathsci's thread there is being completely ignored by admins. I'm getting the impression that although people think something should be done, admins and arbitrators both want it to be somebody else's problem. Forgive me my impatience, but I would appreciate some transparency in knowing whether Arbcom is still discussing this and whether they intend to do anything. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We have multiple other contentious cases open at the moment. I haven't seen any bandwidth expended on this issue on the internal mailing list, which makes me suspect that it's not on anyone's top list of things to deal with at the moment. What did Roger say when you approached him? Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I figured you were going to discuss this with Roger Davies privately. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Is your suggestion that I bring it up with him myself? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have other things to talk with Roger about, like the case we're co-drafting, and I lack the familiarity with R&I to convey the background well. Apologies if that wasn't clear, but yes, I was expecting you to approach him separately. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion here that you might want to look at.

As per your suggestion I raised the issue with Roger Davies, but his response did not address the issue. I'm not sure I understand the reason for Arbcom's lack of response in the amendment thread, but it means admins at AE are trying to take matters into their own hands. And as you can see from the discussion in EdJohnson's user talk, this includes the suggestion that in the future AE will make decisions based on off-wiki information about editors. You said here that Arbcom has decided this information shouldn't be discussed in public, so this is the first time I've seen an admin suggest that AE go against what Arbcom has decided.

I can't try to resolve this at AE. I've already seen in the amendment thread that the group of editors who opposed me on R&I more than a year ago are using this opportunity to bring up off-wiki information about me in public. Anything I post related to this issue at a noticeboard will likely get a similar response, and now I see that I can't count on admins caring whether my privacy is respected.

I understand that Arbcom is busy, but there are some issues that can't be ignored forever. At this point, it looks like Arbcom's lack of response for the past week may result in a decision that will make outing unavoidable in certain future AE requests. I know from your comment above that this isn't something Arbcom would agree with, so I'm asking that Arbcom please not continue to ignore this issue. At this point, even a response from an arbitrator who's unfamiliar with the R&I case would be a lot better than the consequences of no response. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Check WP:AE#Ferahgo the Assassin to see what has been written at AE so far. I don't believe that any information filed there up to this point creates a risk of outing anyone. The people who have commented there seem to have used caution in their statements. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about any information that's being posted in the current thread. It's about your suggestion that in future AE threads editors can be sanctioned based on off-wiki personal information, which means people will have to post that information in public. I explained this in your user talk, and your response was just that I should either bring this issue up with Arbcom or post about it at AE. That was right after I explained why bringing the issue up at AE would only cause more of the same problem, which is already happening in the amendment thread. I don't think I'm being unclear about any of this. I don't understand why you keep responding to a different point from the one I'm making, but this seems kind of evasive.

Jclemens, I would really appreciate some response from you on this. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what to tell you. I don't have the history in the R&I case, and really don't have the time to acquire any. Yes, the TimidGuy ban appeal will clarify what is or is not permissible in respect to pursuing other editors, which should have a direct bearing on the case. Functionaries who have identified to the WMF are the only approved recipients of off-wiki information, and within the functionaries, the arbitrators (and, to a lesser extent, Checkusers) are the ones charged with acting on it. The non-functionary user base, admins at AE included, are not entitled to receive privacy information, such that it makes no sense to expect them to act upon it. Of course, once anything has been brought up on-wiki by a party, then it becomes fair game, but off-wiki sleuthing is not authorized. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're on the same page about who should handle off-wiki information, so thanks for clarifying. But what would be more helpful than anything would be some reassurance that Arbcom won't continue to ignore these issues indefinitely in my amendment request. It's sat idle for over a week now, and my attempt to get Roger Davies to look at it was unsuccessful. And as you may have noticed, Mathsci is continuing to add new sections to his AE report about me and his statement in the amendment thread with diffs of all my comments here and in EdJohnston's user talk. Please try to look at this from my perspective: while this conflict is ongoing and I'm trying to bring it to Arbcom's attention, I don't know what to do about this continued silence. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would chill out and ignore it. Captain Occam's failure to do so undoubtedly contributed to his poor outcome in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring it might be an okay solution temporarily. But although I have no interest in doing so at the moment, I do hope that eventually it will be possible to appeal my topic ban. As long as things stay the way they currently are, though, even just the idea of trying to appeal my ban while having to deal with this kind of harassment seems like it would truly be a nightmare. I'm apparently not the only person who feels this way: two other editors have recently said that the editing environment on R&I articles has become so toxic that it's completely sapped their motivation to participate in it. As I pointed out in my exchange with Edjohnston, discretionary sanctions do not seem to be helping matters.

From my own perspective, I don't want this to be the atmosphere in which I attempt to appeal my ban. And looking at this from the perspective of the rest of the community, it can't be good to let the editing environment remain so toxic that uninvolved editors are consistently driven away. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Votes in Δ case

I see you've voted both for and against Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Proposed_decision#Betacommand_limited_to_BAG_approved_tasks, although it's true that your support was only a "distant choice". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I changed my mind, updated my vote, but forgot to strike. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Gaming the system"

I think it would be easier for your fellow Arbs to accept as principle (or even FoF) that applying unusual/novel standards only to a subset of images (which also happen to be the ones controversial for certain belief-structure reasons) rather than all images in the article is the most troublesome issue with respect to "gaming the system". I hope I've managed to illustrate that a bit in my /Evidence. Unlike what you proposed at principle 10, such a principle does not require presupposition about the motives of editors engaging in argumentation distinctly different in sourcing/educational standards for various images. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought. I think I like the FoF idea, but I don't know that I have the time to dig through the diffs to put one together, with my own obligations in another case and the speed at which this one is moving forward. Would you (or anyone else) be willing to do the legwork to illustrate the niche application of the novel arguments? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My brief evidence on that is here. JN466 had more arguments like that, e.g. in this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked, and I don't see enough there to build into an FoF that would support a generalized case. At most, it might support a finding with respect to Jayen, but I don't think his individual arguments are bad enough that I would feel comfortable supporting such an individual FoF. The fact is, the case is progressing rather handily and both my proposal and the one with which it was designed to contrast are nowhere close to passing, so I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Images case - POLA

Considering that POLA was pretty firmly rejected by the community in regards to how the Foundation described it, I think it's rather inappropriate to be using it in any incarnation in an active Arbcom case. You can't advise editors to follow a principle that the community has rejected. Silverseren 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can. POLA is an adequate idea, poorly phrased, that unfortunately hands a lot of ammo to censors in this case if misunderstood. As a pretty typical long-term Misplaced Pages editor, I am astonished that we do not have an anthropomorphic, unveiled likeness of Muhammad in the infobox. THAT, as far as I'm concerned, is how POLA and NPOV would mesh with respect to this issue. Jclemens (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose. I think you're actually the first person to try and state POLA as being used for the inclusion of images, rather than the dis-inclusion. The thing i'm worried about is that, since your interpretation of it is rather novel, everyone else is going to interpret the statement in the way that everyone has anyways, that it is restricting images, not opening them up. Silverseren 08:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It does have its place in the exclusion of inappropriate images. But I think the foundation probably deserve a little more credit than for us to assume they would expect it to be as simplistic and censorship-friendly as some have presumed it to be here. Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

They could have admittedly timed it better. With the timing relationship with the Muhammad fiasco, that's the main thing everyone thinks it is applying to. And, in such a case, it very much seems like they are trying to apply censorship to the subject. The main issue really is that they included religion in the POLA announcement, when religious offense is pretty much impossible to tangibly define. I mean, Piss Christ is very clearly offensive to Christians, no matter what the creator meant for it to mean, should we then not have the image of it in the article becuase it offends religious sensibilities? I (and I assume many, many others) would say absolutely not. The image is needed as an identifier of the subject and offensiveness or "astonishment" should play no part in it whatsoever. Sorry if i'm re-hashing things you've been discussing time and again with others throughout the case, but the conflict this has created makes sense, since so many of us see it as something fundamental, that to stay neutral, you cannot consider offensiveness whatsoever. Because offense is a subjective term. Silverseren 09:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've used that same example in the workshop. I have no real desire to see Misplaced Pages offend people, but I see no way to maintain both NPOV and a lack of censorship. If we have no (or reduced) images of Muhammad in Muhammad, we must either agree that some viewpoints are more equal than others, take out depictions from all equivalent historical figures, or abandon NPOV. None of those outcomes is at all acceptable to me. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Content Rehabilitation Project

Well, well. The {{rescue}} template has been deleted. One could argue that the close was premature, since there was an associated RfC also encompassing the TfD, but that's just a technicality. Reading the debate, there's clearly a large group of people who see the ARS as nothing more than a hyper-inclusionist voting bloc. That's unfortunate, but not as inaccurate as I would like it to be.

As such, while the ARS could probably continue in some way, shape, or form, I think it's an opportune time to supplant it with something that does the work, without the drama. Long-time readers of this talk page will note that this isn't the first time I've postulated something along these lines, but this time, it's probably the right time to actually do something about it.

To that end, I will be kicking off the Content Rehabilitation Project. The fundamental premise of the project is that deleted content represents something into which some editor invested time and effort, and is a source of topics and article "parts" that can, with appropriate effort, be made acceptable for the encyclopedia. In brief, it will have no membership lists, not take any part in inclusion guideline discussion, reward participants for actually improving articles, work on problematic content that needs help: whether older content that needs to be rewritten/merged/whatever, deleted content that needs to be brought up to current Misplaced Pages standards before mainspace, or the traditional domain of the ARS, content facing a current AfD that may be salvageable during the duration of that discussion. Want to help out? Let me know here. Jclemens (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

rephrase

Perhaps "Once an outside pressure group has publicly requested that Misplaced Pages content be changed, future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the results desired by the outside pressure group." should become "Once an argument for removing material has been rejected on policy grounds (censorship, for example), future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the same results."

The focus on "outside pressure group" seems to be the source of the resistance, and I don't think it was really your point.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. The problem I see with that revision, however, is that there's not agreement that "not censored" is a sufficient argument to reject a proposed content change; the current consensus seems to be it's not an argument to accept a proposed content change, a subtle but important difference. In the specific instance of images deemed religiously offensive by some subset of editors that might work, but I'm thinking more about the larger cases, including things like Virgin Killer. Would that help there? I'm not sure, because that was primarily a surge prompted by some publicity, which seems to have since died down. Jclemens (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. I can see the argument for focused language on the particular problem, but it's actually a pervasive problem going beyond the removal of material. I certainly see it going both ways in AFDs, as people reach for increasingly specious and novel interpretations of existing policies to both justify retention and demand removal of articles. Perhaps a somewhat blander proposal that doesn't pinpoint censorship as the problem, but instead focuses on novel interpretations that achieve a previously established goal is the way to go.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks, Philippe. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

re: Block

I know it's still early in the ani discussion, but I'm seeing some range of "may be a bit much" in regards to the DreamFocus block. I note that he has now posted an unblock request, and I think several admins. may consider it a possibility. I didn't want to just "approve" it without coming and talking to you first though. What are your thoughts? — Ched :  ?  13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)