Revision as of 04:45, 22 February 2012 editWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Arbitration policy: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:03, 22 February 2012 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,494 edits →Arbitration policy: rNext edit → | ||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
A question related to one of your posts: ]. <b>] ] </b> 04:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | A question related to one of your posts: ]. <b>] ] </b> 04:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Replied there... but that was a relatively simple answer to find. ] (]) 05:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:03, 22 February 2012
Archives |
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...
Administrator Goals
Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:
Baelor
Hi, I've reviewed this article for GA, and while it's pretty much there, there are some minor issues which need to be sorted out, so I've put it on hold for a week. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I'll address it asap! Jclemens-public (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
{{talkback|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard}}
My76Strat (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#BC_3_Section_Break
Thank you for your answers on the Noticeboard. I did not consider that the Arbs could miss the discussion there and that it would maybe help to point the Arbitrators to it, my apologies for that. I have posted a follow-up set of questions. --Dirk Beetstra 04:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Replied there, thanks for the note. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
RFC
Could you comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Reformating_Emmy_Awards_episodic_Directing_and_Writing_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Replied there, thanks. That looks like a perfectly good approach, but not one about which I have terribly strong feelings. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
Hi - could I ask why the personal info recently posted there wasn't suppressed in the end? Mato (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Jossi's personal info? There are a number of reasons: too many revisions so suppressing is messy, someone else should have done it first, it's Jimbo's talk page and he's perfectly capable of asking for it, the subject never asked either, etc., but fundamentally Jimbo's right, since it is public contact info any harm is minimal. Not every violation requires suppression, nor is there any evidence of bad intent in the posting. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining :) Mato (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
{{tb|He to Hecuba}}
--He to Hecuba (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thanks. Headed to bed now, will check back in ~12 hours or so. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Baelor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friday Night Lights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Hello. I'm leaving this note as an FYI ... just to let you know that I've quoted you here, as I understand some editors prefer the courtesy of knowing when they have been quoted or paraphrased (as, among other things, it allows them to make sure they weren't misconstrued).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Baelor (2)
Hi there. You probably have it watchlisted, but I thought I'd let you know I left some comments about one of your GAs at Talk:Baelor#Some comments. Just looking at this page I can see that you're very busy here, but hopefully you can take a look over my comments when you get the chance. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, those are some great, concrete suggestions. I'll see what I can do about them tomorrow. If you feel like giving the same treatment to any of the other articles in the season, I'd welcome the attention. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
In god knows how many years of reading Arbcom proposals, that (Timidguy ban appeal) must be the sanest one I have seen given what you had to work with. In fact I registered just to congratulate you and the others involved. Good job. Only in death does service end (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm grateful that the level of care and effort we put into getting that one right shines through. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- It really does. Addresses the concerns of fairness in ban appeals, the various aspects of 'how far should/can an admin go', and ultimately that certain types of behavior on WP wont be tolerated. However as a cynical person, I dont think some of them have a hope in hell of making it through. Especially after the letdown that was the civility decision. Which has ended up with someone slapped on the wrist for being uncivil, but no actual plan of action on preventing the same behavior in the future. But I really really hope I am pleasantly surprised. Also, dont take my choice of nickname as any sort of comment on your position ;) Only in death does service end (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the civility decision is a call to the community to get its act together; it's a lot easier to deal with one particular person who is behaving contrary to expectations, vs. a whole group of people who are each collectively acting less than ideally. As such, you don't find too many sanctions, but there is a bunch of groundwork laid for future discussions, sanctions, and enforcement. Culture change doesn't happen overnight, even when it's calling a community back to its own self-stated ideals. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well I might stick around to see if it works. I suspect even the most light-handed methods of attempting to direct culture change (even if its just reminding WP editors of what we/they want to be!) are going to go awry. However since my areas of interest on WP (mainly because of my job) lie in its editor dispute/mediation & arbitration, I might have to go back to lurking. But feel free to point me in a direction if you think I should go active. My talkpage is now open. And also uncluttered. Only in death does service end (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the civility decision is a call to the community to get its act together; it's a lot easier to deal with one particular person who is behaving contrary to expectations, vs. a whole group of people who are each collectively acting less than ideally. As such, you don't find too many sanctions, but there is a bunch of groundwork laid for future discussions, sanctions, and enforcement. Culture change doesn't happen overnight, even when it's calling a community back to its own self-stated ideals. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- It really does. Addresses the concerns of fairness in ban appeals, the various aspects of 'how far should/can an admin go', and ultimately that certain types of behavior on WP wont be tolerated. However as a cynical person, I dont think some of them have a hope in hell of making it through. Especially after the letdown that was the civility decision. Which has ended up with someone slapped on the wrist for being uncivil, but no actual plan of action on preventing the same behavior in the future. But I really really hope I am pleasantly surprised. Also, dont take my choice of nickname as any sort of comment on your position ;) Only in death does service end (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration policy
A question related to one of your posts: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Who controls the artibration policy?. Will Beback talk 04:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Replied there... but that was a relatively simple answer to find. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)