User talk: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
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

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)