User talk:Jclemens

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

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

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

• 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:

More information

Hello Jclemens, Could you please add more information to this image's description http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electrosurgery.jpg In what hospital was it taken? What is the name of the surgeon? I'd also will appreciate the links to your works that were published in academic journals and magazines. Cheers.--108.60.139.170 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have permission to share any of that information. That's mostly because I never asked, but this is 3.5 years ago now, and that is the reason I never provided it when I uploaded the photo. Neither the surgeon nor the location (nor the patient, presumably) have a Wikipedia article, and since the photo was taken focusing on the technique, there was no good reason to.

As far as my various published works, none of them are relevant to Wikipedia, and I've seen no reason to list them on-wiki. If you have a particular or specific interest, you can make an account, and email me using the "E-mail this user" functionality once it's confirmed, and I'll respond appropriately in email. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops!

Heads up: Oops! You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper way here T. trichiura Infect me 14:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a Wikipedian

"It's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Wikipedia community". In your opinion, but not in the opinion of many others. If you're suggesting it's appropriate to state personal opinion as fact, you should have no problem with many "incivil" comments - they're his opinion, after all. If you're not suggesting that, I would ask that you take this opportunity to amend your comment. I don't generally believe in templating the regulars, so consider this a civility warning; I'm sure you'd agree that holding others to the civility policy while ignoring it yourself is completely inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I don't believe the pillars are subject to wholesale amendment by the community. One doesn't have to like them to be a Wikipedian, one merely has to follow them--all of them--to be a Wikipedian. The fact that you, or even a majority of active editors, might disagree doesn't matter one bit: the WMF funds our existence on the basis of the pillars; we are all subject to them. Malleus has had plenty of instruction in what civil behavior is or is not, and he has chosen to not act in accordance with that feedback. He's chosen his path, as is his right. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought of giving you a warning too. I agree with the general opinion of the supporting arbs, but the way you expressed it was way harsher than it needed to be. Sure, you clarified your definition of Wikipedian, but there's still no reasonable context in which that is acceptable (unless you equated Wikipedian = a person who plagiarizes and said he was not a Wikipedian). --Rschen7754 02:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Harsher than it needed to be? I disagree. It was my best effort to hit just the right level of provocative statement needed to reframe the discussion in terms of what it means to be a Wikipedian. For what it's worth, the next time someone leaks the ArbCom mailing lists, it will be evident that I've been thinking along these lines for weeks. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I asked you weeks ago to put your thoughts on civility into the current RFC so that the community could see where you were coming from. You've failed to do that, despite my multiple requests that you (and other arbitrators who hold strong opinions) do so. The fact that you've refused to put your concepts forward to gauge the extent of community concurrence with them suggests to me that you're well aware that your interpretation of the relevant policies is out of step with that of the community. So...how about putting forward the proposal you posted to Arbcom-L? Run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes. Risker (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

May I recall to your memory my Arbcom-L posting of 10 October, where I said in part "I think the fundamental problem with the RfC--any RfC--on civility is that the community cannot solve it, because participation is not restricted TO the community--that is, those who agree with all five pillars." Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are refusing to share the fullness of your opinions on how to address civility problems with the community because you don't believe that people who disagree with you are part of the community? Seriously, Jclemens...just post here what you posted on the list. Let's see how the community responds. Your refusal to do so pretty much invalidates any actions you take based on your personal civility values. The community has a right to know the basis on which an arbitrator is voting. Risker (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be a rather one-sided disclosure, don't you think? Are you giving me permission to disclose what you've had to say on the matter as well? Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one saying someone is not part of the community, Jclemens, you are. I posted my views onwiki during the Civility enforcement arbitration case request; you'll recall that I proposed that what I perceived to be similar degrees of incivility should be sanctioned in the same way. There was no significant support for my proposal, either from the community or from other arbitrators. Risker (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I endorsed what you proposed in the civility case, but questioned whether it was the most effective manner to proceed. See my replies of 23:25, 30 September 2012 and 01:29, 1 October 2012 here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I specified "significant" support, which I would categorize as at least 40% of the participating committee members. Risker (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, then, as long as we're clear that I wasn't opposing your ideas. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider what you said to be civil? That seems to be an important question here. --Rschen7754 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

1) If I considered it uncivil, would I have said it? 2) On what basis would it be considered uncivil? While the first question should clearly be read as rhetorical, I am actually interested in your response to the second. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." (WP:CIV). I find it interesting to note that quite a few arbs have distanced themselves from your statement. And should ArbCom be in the business of making "provocative" statements? --Rschen7754 03:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement isn't directed to Malleus and doesn't expect a reply from him. And at least four or five arbs clearly disagree with me, and I knew that when I posted it. But stating unpopular truths in the interest of furthering and focusing discourse is different than incivility. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But he read it, right? And your fellow arbs had to apologize for you, even the ones voting to support (SirFozzie). I believe that Malleus is a person of integrity. The primary problem he has is that he can't keep his opinions to himself sometimes. I believe that's a serious problem, of course, and I'm definitely on the side of enforcing civility here. But that's exactly what you did here - denigrated another editor of this site. You're welcome to hold the opinion that he's no longer a Wikipedian, but stating it publicly is another issue entirely. Arbitrators should be held to a higher standard. --Rschen7754 03:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if he read it or not. He recently commented elsewhere that "I don't have even the slightest interest in anything you have to say" Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

[1] Noted the revision... still a bit off, but better. --Rschen7754 03:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea why it might be considered uncivil to say that someone who has devoted hours to this site, who has thousands of good and perfectly policy-compliant edits to articlespace, who has contributed loads to the encyclopedia (y'know, that thing we're all supposed to be building?), is not a member of our community? To dismiss someone's participation by "refram[ing]" the discussion according to your own limited definition of what it means to be a Wikipedian? To make a hurtful and deliberately provocative comment just to further a point? To blatantly and cruelly dismiss the whole of a human being because you disagree with a part? Either the answer to your first question is "yes", or your competence is seriously in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It was an act of shunning which is the deepest rejection possible. It's beyond incivility. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Going to point out that in the Ottava Rima case, ArbCom did at least treat him with dignity by recognizing his contributions, even as he was sent away. --Rschen7754 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think comments like this are far more insulting than a thousand "twat" comments and was somewhat shocked to see such a comment being made by an Arb. Essentially, you were saying to Malleus that all of the time and effort he has put into this site is somehow negated because of a single human flaw. If someone said a thing like that to me it would be hard to resist cursing them out. It would be like pushing to fire someone from a soup kitchen where they have worked for years because they kept smoking pot during break and then telling them they were never really about helping the poor and homeless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What if the soup kitchen prohibited pot smoking during breaks by their employees?--MONGO 04:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would that justify telling them they contributed nothing to helping the poor? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

To be accurate, it would not justify telling someone they were not sincere about helping the poor. No one doubts Malleus has contributed considerably to Wikipedia, but the comment that "he was never a member of the community" is akin to saying he never really cared about Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That was a very shitty thing to say and you know it. I don't care whether it was civil or not and that's not really the point. You knew it was a shitty thing to say when you posted it and it's not even true. The comment also needlessly adds fuel to the fire and will undoubtedly come back to (deservedly) bite you in the ass. WWNYBD? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Next Internet meme. --Rschen7754 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A very forceful way to put it...thought provoking even. I might have been more inclined to fully agree with the concept of it had you phrased it as at some point awhile ago...Malleus decided to no longer be a Wikipedian. However, I feel you are correct in that the pillars are paramount and it reminds me how important it is that we all do our best to uphold those pillars...and that they bind us all.--MONGO 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a very good point. I think I'll amend my statement to incorporate it, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I have to say, I think it's deeply ironic that you would listen to advice of MONGO, an editor who had a dispute with Malleus on the 9/11 page because of issues of neutrality, when in my view, NPOV is our strongest pillar. It's very easy to re-focus a dialogue (he's incivil and needs to be banned) thus hushing a voice that speaks out for balanced content. In the end we have to think about the product we deliver to our readers and in my view that gets overlooked by POV pushing agenda driven editors all too often. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, your actions are an absolute disgrace to ArbCom for daring to say something like this about a content contributor. You should be banned for six months, not Malleus. You disgust me. Resign from the committee now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't offended by your original, unredacted comment. I think the topic brings out a lot of strong feelings, and even if I thought you were over the line, I respect and acknowledge that occasional errors are part of our being human. Still, having said that, I appreciate your efforts to refocus the statement on the divergent ideas, rather than individual personalities, involved. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you reconcille your ideal "on the divergent ideas, rather than individual personalities", with making statements like, uh, this person is not, ever was "a wikipedian". That goes to the core. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(person) (is || is not) (status), where status is an abstract concept with a non-trivial definition, is fundamentally a statement of an idea, even though a person is the subject of the sentence. Or, if you like, the proposition could be phrased as a proof: "Wikipedians follow all five pillars; Malleus does not follow pillar 4; therefore, Malleus is not a Wikipedian". Contrast that to calling another editor a "Dishonest fuck"; even if we granted for the sake of argument that the first statement could be deduced (accuracy or inaccuracy can; dishonesty implies motive to deceive, and I have yet to see that proven), the latter is gratuitous insult. Jclemens (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

How can you say that things like copyvio are sacrosanct and I've spent the past two days being subjected to endless personal attacks for trying to keep copyvio from the main page and have been accused of all kinds of conspiracies. This after a year of putting up with bullying by a user whose behavior was apparently okay. Can you please point me a., to the request for arbitration in regards to the TFA case and b., to the original findings on the Malleus / civility case? I'd like the time to read them carefully before being accused of hollowness again. Am trying very hard to get up to speed. It's Friday night, ate pizza late, and you guys ain't slowing down for anything. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with your copyvio battles; point me at them and I'll block editors appropriately. Copyvio and civility are in the same boat: how Wikipedia is is not as it should be, and we're all aware of that... but for some reason, otherwise decent editors have been hand-wringing over what is or is not incivil. As for the links, I don't keep them on hand myself, but I go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index and search there as needed. Let me know if you can't find what you want in those search boxes and I'll try my hand. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Everyone knows every little word uttered by Malleus, but when an editor spends an entire year being bullied, and spends a good chunk of the last few days being maligned and nothing is done about it, the double standard is just astounding. I'm tired and logging out. You might start by having a look at Iridescent's page, my page, WP:TFAR among others. But it's quite honestly all over the place. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've provided the link to the TFAR case. --Rschen7754 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)