Jclemens

I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND

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

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

Great idea!

Hey Jclemens, I was part of the deletion discussion of Aiden Pearce, until I got absolutely obliterated by User:Boneless Pizza. I saw your comment on the idea of the Characters of the Watch Dogs franchise, which to me, seems like a great idea! I found a few sources ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) and I'm pretty sure there'll be way more if you dig deeper. Do you want to co-create the article with me? Please let me know MK at your service. 07:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer. I have limited time to dedicate to content creation on Wikipedia, however, and if I DID have time to tackle fiction/entertainment topics, it would be dedicated to books I've read, shows I've watched, or games I've played. I've never played the Watch Dogs series, nor do I have time to, and so I wouldn't know the first thing about the content on which we would be working. My sincerest apologies, but I must decline. Perhaps a talk page stalker might emerge to volunteer? One can hope. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I understand your style of Wikipedia content creation. I mainly rely on video game journalism, secondary websites, or my experience from the games themselves. I have a few more people I could try, or I could just put up topic in the article for the franchise's talk page and see if anyone would want to lend a hand. I will take your idea into consideration too, but comparably to others, I'm new to Wikipedia, so my talk page isn't really active unless bots are considered talk page stalkers. Thank you for your kind words of respectfully declining. Maybe we'd run into each other later on Wikipedia. Sincerely, MK at your service. 07:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

DRV closures

Compounding one bad decision by making yet another one (this time, explicitly against the guidance for closure at WP:DRV#Closing_reviews) is just ignoring consensus, plain and simple. DRV is clear that an admin should close it only after the seven day discussion period. There are limited options for closing earlier, but the fact that the nominating editor happened to be blocked as a sock is not one of them (and does not undermine the support they've received since the discussion started). As to your closure notes: Socks do not have standing to start DRVs. As mentioned, WP:DRV makes no mention of socks nor their ability to start a discussion. Having said that, the consensus is very clear ... You closed the discussion in less time than the AFD had, and far short of the SEVEN days DRV demands. These continued out of process closures are damaging the project and the respect it has. This is why you were reverted. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What part of "socks don't have standing" do you not understand? If you want to start a new DRV on the same topic, you're welcome to do that, but one non-admin doesn't revert another's non-admin close. It's not like I'm just making the guidance up; go read WP:SOCKSTRIKE and see how it's been applied at DRV before. Again, happy for any admin to revert me... but I doubt any of the admins who frequent DRV will, which is why I made the closure in the first place. From a pragmatic stance, our eyes need to be on the article, because whatever happens, the content there will be kept standalone OR merged, as I noted, and so arguing over its immediate fate in the <24 hour aftermath of the event is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Further Lock Cole, you reopened a discussion in which you've already expressed an opinion. That's never a good idea. You'll note that I've gnomed one redirect in the topic area, but not expressed any opinions on the topic... because I don't have any--at least not on how Wikipedia covers the deceased assassin. I mean, yes, terrible event, but I wrote the original version of WP:WI1E back in 2009, so I have 15 years of looking at how Wikipedia can best cover such things. When all is said and done, he will either have a separate article, like Hinckley as cited in BLP1E, or Squeaky Fromme, Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremer, John Schrank, or Lee Harvey Oswald. WP:OSE isn't a Wikipedia thing, of course, but can you name anyone who's put a bullet in a United States presidential candidate who doesn't have a Wikipedia article? Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, per Category:Failed assassins of presidents of the United States, the guy who tried to grab a gun at a 2016 Trump event but got nowhere is the only redirect listed, so it's not a 100% populated category... but pretty close. Wikipedia does do things pretty consistently, when all is said and done. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What part of "socks don't have standing" do you not understand? Every single word of it, actually. I read WP:SOCKSTRIKE, and maybe you ought to give it a read: Under Removal, This should only be done when their comments are stand alone with no replies, or when there are one or two replies that clearly do not add anything of value to the discussion, which finishes with [i]f in doubt, don't do it. It's unclear if there's another subsection of WP:SOCKSTRIKE you're referencing above, but looking over it, it appears if anything you should have followed the advice under Striking in this instance, and made a note at the top in small text for the initial discussion. It's worth mentioning that the socks that were blocked were not used in this DRV discussion, so the sockmaster never abused them to give an impression of more support. You've taken disruptive behavior that could have been mitigated and instead cranked the dial to 11.

You note in another reply that I reopened a discussion I was involved in, and stated it's "never a good idea". Is it any worse of an idea than a former admin/arbiter not following the fairly explicit instructions at WP:DRV that admins be the ones closing these discussions? And in the same way, does WP:BRD only apply to other editors? You boldly closed the discussion, you were reverted, and rather than discussing the issue, you reverted again. To quote your sage advice from earlier, [t]hat's never a good idea.

I'm not going to address your AFD-esque arguments, as those reveal a bias in your conduct and also simultaneously are irrelevant to a DRV discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to post at WT:DRV or WP:AN if you'd like an admin to review my actions. I think I've given you as thorough an answer on both the procedure and underlying policy as I can, and possibly too much so as you've stated those reveal a bias in your conduct. I don't take your assumption of bad faith personally, as you're obviously very passionate about the topic, and it is certainly one where everyone will have strong feelings. But, at the end of the day, socks don't have standing. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

But, at the end of the day, socks don't have standing. Where is this written down as policy or guideline? I went over WP:SOCKSTRIKE with you above, and you've yet to quote something beyond saying it repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a commonly accepted practice, deriving from those generalities. So... see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 13, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 3, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1 (where the discussion was allowed to continue), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 3, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 15, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 24... So we're seeing this sort of thing a bit less than once per month. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in mid-conversation, but the difference between the above DRVs and Crooks' DRV is that Crooks' received several good faith votes to overturn/relist, while there were no such votes during the ones linked above. Normally, the correct course of action would have been to strike the nominating statement as a sockstrike but let the DRV run its course. However, I fully support the early close based on points 2 and 3 (and would have voted endorse myself but I was not on-wiki yesterday). Frank Anchor 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a valid concern, but the other half of the coin is WP:DFTT. By continuing to allow a disruptive nomination that had little to no chance of succeeding--following a less DENY-centered response--allows the troll to 'win' by watching Wikipedia editors waste time battling each other over something that doesn't matter. I've been doing this, off and on, for about 18 years now, and the similarities to other U.S. election years is evident: Once something hits the media frenzy "It's not notable yet!" is a naive cry. Does anyone, Lock Cole included, think Crooks' article does not demonstrate notability? We're just a bit over 2 days past the event; a seven-day process is pointless because even if there are good faith editors who don't think standalone notability exists yet, anyone who thinks that Crooks' article is not going to continue to draw RS attention over the next four days doesn't understand the interaction between major current events and Wikipedia articles. This is not me expressing an opinion on the content or the topic, merely the flow between major political news stories and Wikipedia articles: trying to delete an article on a breaking political topic in the middle of the corresponding media frenzy is a Quixotic effort, which is why trolls love to spark or support such efforts. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole - I was one of the good-standing editors who called for Overturn and Relist - I took part in the DRV thinking that it was brought by another editor in good standing. I accept that I am in a minority who favored an overturn. The originator of the DRV is not even in the minority, because blocked means blocked. I don't plan to start another DRV or AN. Sockpuppets are block-evaders, and block-evading must not be encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As @Frank Anchor noted, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE, the correct action would have been to strike the spurious comments (few that there were) so as not to disrupt the project further by completely derailing the conversation which had strong arguments for both actions. From the very beginning of WP:SOCKSTRIKE: When deciding how to clean up after a sock, ask yourself: "What is the cleanest and least disruptive way of dealing with each edit?", and use that as your guide. I posit that undermining the time invested by over a dozen editors by closing the discussion early (and incorrectly, against the guidance at WP:DRV) was more disruptive than simply using judicious striking/hatting to allow the in-progress discussion to reach it's conclusion and not robbing involved editors of their time investment. The examples cited by Jclemens, in addition to being a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, aren't even the same situations, with the sock discussions being closed long before any significant discussion could get underway. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And as I also noted, the close was correct based on points 2 and 3. Just disagree with using the sock nominator as justification for the close. Frank Anchor 00:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to points 2 and 3 of the "Speedy Closes" at WP:DRV or something I'm missing? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Jclemens - Can the close of Speedy Keep at least be changed to snowball early close of Keep? The closer didn't know the difference, but the guidelines set forth the difference clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon ugh, sticky situation there. I don't disagree with your point, but the entire point of my NAC was that the sock-started DRV shouldn't have been opened in the first place. I get that you get this, but I want to make the rationale clear for anyone else coming along and reading this later. I think there's merit to your request as housekeeping--has the original closer declined to update their rationale? Because I think the original closer making the technical change is the best way forward without ME overstepping. Failing that, let's get another DRV admin (Star Mississippi comes to mind as someone with a low tolerance for socking at DRV) to make that switch, or I think we will just have to restart a DRV or reopen the one I closed for just that purpose. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. The status of the DRV changed for the worse while it was in progress, when the originator was found to be a block-evading sockpuppet, so it became clear that the DRV never should have been opened. I agree with that, and that can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that the rest of the DRV was noise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've asked on Ganesha811's talk page about the potential for a wording update, and pointed to this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that was an error on my part. I'm going to strike the "speedy" part of the close and make a note there. Thank you both for bringing it to my attention. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that concern. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)