Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:04, 11 June 2010

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC).

Jclemens (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Cause of concern

{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}

The initial incident which sparked this situation occured when User:Jclemens rolled back 21 !votes recently cast by me on various AfD's ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]).

His justification for the rollbacks was that a userbox that I had recently created constituted evidence that my !votes on these AfD's were in bad faith, and were disruptive. Jclemens made no attempt to discuss the situation with me before reverting my !votes, but he notified me of his actions afterwards here, and ordered me to cease contributing to AfD's which were flagged for rescue. In addition, that same message he left on my talk page included an admission that he noticed I had voted Keep on one of the AfD's, a clear indication that my !votes were likely not in bad faith.

Prior to these actions, Jclemens and I were involved in a lengthy discussion on an AfD which he has attempted to "rescue" (see here). His contributions to this discussion often had an angry tone, indicating that he was becoming upset and/or emotionally involved with the AfD. This may have contributed to his decision to later abuse his rollback rights.

Immediately following Jclemens' reverts of my !votes, he started an ANI regarding my "bad faith edits" and I simultaneously started a separate ANI regarding his abuse of his rollback rights. These two ANI threads were later merged into one, and can be found here. He also started an MfD on my userbox, which can be seen here.

The clear and immediate consensus of the community (both on ANI and both of our talk pages) was that Jclemens' rollbacks were entirely inappropriate, and an abuse of his power. Perhaps the most troubling part of this whole situation is that Jclemens continues to ignore all advice and stands by his actions. He is, even now, continuing to start arguments and wikilawyering in an attempt to prove that what he did was right. In the interest of time (one of the AfD's had already closed, and others were about to close), another administrator reverted Jclemens' rollbacks and reinstated my !votes when it became clear that Jclemens was steadfastly refusing to do so.

In my opinion, this is troubling behavior for an editor, but even moreso for an admin. There appears to be a pattern emerging with Jclemens' behavior, as evidenced in several past ANI's involving Jclemens: [22][23][24]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

A discussion regarding the appropriateness of the rollbacks has already taken place on the ANI, and appears to have gained consensus. However, that discussion can be continued here if deemed necessary.
Jclemens needs to understand that his actions were inappropriate, and communicate that to the community. He has not yet indicated that he understands this. To be clear, I'm not asking for an apology or an admission of guilt to make myself feel better or to feed my ego. However, I firmly believe that any admin on Wikipedia should be able to clearly see this behavior as unambiguously inappopriate.
If Jclemens is unable to sincerely admit that his actions were unambiguously inappropriate, then I believe that discussions should be started regarding:
1. Whether Jclemens should continue to be an admin.
2. Whether Jclemens should avoid using admin tools in AfD's, except in cases of obvious vandalism.
3. Whether Jclemens should avoid using the rollback tool, except in cases of obvious vandalism.
4. Whether Jclemens should be allowed to officiate AFDs given his clear lack of judgement in these, and membership of what seems to be an inclusionist group which would seem to bring his impartiality into question

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

While there was no opportunity to resolve the dispute before the rollbacks were made (because Jclemens didn't let me know that there was a dispute until after he rolled back my !votes), I did give him an opportunity to revert the rollbacks before I started the ANI complaint [25].
Failing that, I started the ANI thread and repeatedly asked for the rollbacks to be reverted. Had he complied, there would have been no need for this RfC. [26]
Several other admins and editors asked him to revert the rollbacks on his talk page, to no avail. [27][28][29][30][31]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

Jclemens has continued to argue and wikilawyer in order to prove his point that his rollbacks were appropriate and in line with WP policy, despite dozens of editors and admins asking him to revert his rollbacks. He repeatedly refused to undo his rollbacks until someone convinced him that my edits were not disruptive. Surprisingly enough, no one was able to convince him. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

I'll endorse this statement insofar as this action is very troubling from an editor with Admin rights. However, everyone has bad days, and this appears to be a single event. At this time, I don't see this concern needing to be taken further than the current AN/I discussion.[48] / edg ☺ ☭ 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a single event. I also had a protracted situation with Jclemens several months ago. He displays a basic pattern of disrespect in situations where his opinions are disputed. A good example is the aggressive manner in which he made his points at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Essay_Tag. That said, he is generally a good and helpful editor, and the encyclopedia has benefited from his presence. While Wikipedia's "orange" pillar states: "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner," a lot of editors get hung up on the letter of WP:CIVIL and forget about the respectful part. Jclemens appears to think that editors adjudged in his eyes to be violating guidelines or policy are not deserving of respect. For an editor, this is unacceptable. For an administrator, it is egregious. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 03:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that administrators should be held to a high standard, and this is clearly well below that standard. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated at the ANI page, this is quite obviously a breach of the trust we place in administrators. I think Snottywong's !votes were in good faith, and to treat them otherwise is pointy. Not discussing the issue with the user before rollback rights were used makes this a clear case of cowboy adminship. Claritas § 08:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a bit premature as the AN/I thread is still ongoing, but I'm comfortable signing on to this. AniMate 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this characterisation of Jclemens' actions is fair. Perhaps he should submit himself to a recall RfA? Fences&Windows 15:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I have ever had any problems with this Admin. I see him edit quite frequently, but haven't seen any problems. However based soley on this complaint, I would say that he is out of line. So I support. PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty poor of an admin to rollback a users !votes on just because he thinks they delete too much. Prom3th3an (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q: The defence of JClemens actions would have to be that he was reverting obvious vandalism (even then, an added comment would have been better than removal). Classing these !votes as "vandalism" would seem to rely on demonstrating that they were purely a knee-jerk reaction to ARS-listing, not merely AfD.

- Were they all ARS listings, not merely AfD?
- Did SW !vote on any that weren't ARS-listed?
- Did SW !vote to keep any?
- Did SW refrain from !voting to delete on any of the ARS-list around this time?

Unless all of the above conditions are met (1st true, 2-4 false), I can't see any credible claim that these were merely unconsidered prejudice (thus possibly subject to reversion). If SW didn't !vote on some other ARS-listed AfDs, I'd see this as good evidence that he'd acted with judgement, i.e. in a non-vandalism manner. I would be interested to compare the ARS-list and SW's !votes. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: All of the !votes which were reverted were for ARS listings. I have contributed to plenty of non-ARS AfD's, however Jclemens only rolled back the recent ARS listings. I voted to Keep one out of the 21 ARS AfD's which were reverted (and on several others I voted to Merge or Transwiki). Finally, I refrained from voting in many of the ARS listings at the time. Feel free to check the ARS list at the time to confirm this. Additionally, I would like to add that all of my votes were based on reasonable rationales, citing applicable WP policies, and clearly indicating that I had read each article and looked at its sources. SnottyWong talk 14:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

This is redundant to the ANI thread, which is still ongoing. I do not intend to participate here until that thread is closed. Obviously the opener has presented a one-sided view which doesn't at all focus on his own actions. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

I am starting to get the feeling that this an attempt at drama mongering by a few users here. Although I don't agree with Jclemens' actions, taking this to RFC while there is an ongoing AN/I discussion is a bit concerning because things like this should be focused into one venues which will make it easier to follow. I support his answer because he did it in good faith but we all have bad days and this is a bit excessive in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Whilst I don't agree with the reverts of AfD commentary, that's hardly enough to force an RFCU. This could all be sorted out without any drama. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This business seems contrary to our policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground and this RfC seems to be a game playing way of extending the conflict rather than resolving it. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable position. RFC/U has routinely been abused in the past, and there is no reason for it to be misused now. Collect (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.: JC, do you believe that the reverts you made re Snottywong's AfD votes were made in Good Faith WP:AGF and at the time were in the best interests of WP?--Mike Cline (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Absolutely. My detailed reasoning is in the ANI thread. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.: JC, if we could turn back the clock and you were confronted with this situation instigated by Snottywong's anti-ARS userbox, would you and how could you have handled it differently in the best interest of WP?--Mike Cline (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. I would have fixed the non-chronological insertion of {{ARSnote}} and left a template equivalent to an {{spa}} note articulating Snottywong's pretextual vote rather than blanking his edits, and then probably proceeded with the MfD and ANI thread. Again, this is covered in more detail in the ANI thread. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.: Why have you not reverted your rollback as requested on the ANI? ZacharyLassiter (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.: I cannot revert what someone else has already reverted. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.: Assuming no one had yet reverted your actions, would you be willing to revert them now? SnottyWong talk 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.: Q. Are you willing to 1) assert that each edit was a good faith !vote and not based on the presence of any of the articles in a list, and 2) refute the initial wording of the userbox which I interpreted as clear evidence of bad faith !voting? Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Despite the fact that you are avoiding the situation by answering with a question, and I know I shouldn't play into your games, I will do so anyway: 1) Each one of my votes were absolutely in good faith. The only way in which my votes were based on the ARS list was that the ARS list is what directed me to review those particular AfD's. Besides that, the fact that the articles were listed on ARS didn't contribute to my !vote. 2) I have already tweaked the wording of my userbox, and admitted that I could see how the original wording could have caused confusion. However, I will not admit that any version of the userbox was "clear evidence of bad faith voting", especially when all of the other evidence regarding my !votes (almost all of which you were aware of) is taken into consideration. Now, can you please actually answer my two questions (and don't answer with another question)? SnottyWong talk 14:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.: Do you continue to maintain that SnottyWong's !votes in these AfD's should be considered disruptive and/or vandalism? SnottyWong talk 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.: See my response to the immediately prior question. Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.: Do you feel that you violated WP:INVOLVED in any way by acting so forcefully on a user with whom you had recently been in an argument? SnottyWong talk 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.: The applicability of INVOLVED is being discussed at ANI. Obviously, I believe what I was doing at the time was in the best interests of the encyclopedia, but it's also obvious that others have interpreted the matter differently. Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.: In hindsight, do you believe that your actions were unambiguously unacceptable, particularly for an admin? SnottyWong talk 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.: Nope. Had it to do over again, I would have sought another administrator and had your presumedly bad-faith AfD edits tagged rather than rolled back. I regret the execution of the corrective actions I took, not that some admin took some action to counter your problematic voting. Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.: Following up on the previous question, what weight do you give the comments of your fellow admins and editors in response to your actions, particularly on your talk page and within the ANI discussions. Do you believe your peers think your actions were unacceptable, or do you interpret their comments differently? SnottyWong talk 15:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.:

Q.: Will you roll back, revert, undo, strike-through, or otherwise "tag" Snottywong's future !votes on AfD's which were tagged for rescue, regardless of whether or not his comments are thoughtful, rational, relevant, and/or backed up by WP policies and guidelines (assuming Snottywong keeps the userbox on his user page)? SnottyWong talk 15:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view by Collect

This RFC/U is in the nature of premature overkill. The editor has a visible record of recent AfD !votes which unfortunately appear to be based more on anger against the "ARS" than on anything else, and Jclemens over-reacted. Single events are hard to promote an RFC/U on. RFC/U is not the first place to go - civil discourse on user talk pages is far preferred, and the existing ANI discussion is sufficient entirely.

Users who endorse this summary:

Collect (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC). I think Rodney King can be invoked here.[reply]
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Movementarian

I kind of stumbled on this whole thing by accident when I was going back through to check AfD's that I participated in. I've kept up with the whole thing out of morbid curiosity and I think that things are getting way out of hand. First, one remedy at a time. There is a ANI discussion going, which hasn't stalled. Let that play out before jumping to the next level. It is sad that the involved parties could not work the issue out on thier own. Second, I have no doubt that Jclemens acted in good faith, misguided or not. There is nothing in Jclemens prior acts that indicates otherwise. I think that an important step toward a resolution is for all parties to first agree to that. Finally, I see why Snottywong is upset. I would be upset if my contributions were rolled back without being judged individually on thier merit. Again, an important step toward resolution would be for all parties to agree on this.

Perhaps the best thing for everyone is to take a step back. In a few days, after having time to reflect on things, Jclemens and Snottywong should start a civil dialogue without outside input and see if they can agree where the other might have a valid point. If they can do that, there isn't an issue to debate. Movementarian (Talk) 06:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved the comments under this section to the above, as I thought they belonged there. If you intended to endorse a blank summary in protest, I apologise.)

Users who endorse this summary:

As the author. Movementarian (Talk) 06:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly. May the involved parties please read this. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Martinp

Creating a userbox essentially saying you're going to blanked !vote to delete certain articles, and then !voting delete on a bunch of articles like that, is a bad idea. It's bound to be viewed as POINTy and disruptive. Snottywong, good to now have toned down the userbox, but naturally your actions will speak louder than your words for a while.
The bar is and should be very high for removing !votes in any discussion, even more so for removing such !votes in multiple discussions. Commenting why a !vote may be biased/disruptive is gienerally better practice. Jclemens appears to have learned this; let's hope we all have.
There is inconsistency in the "rules" for rollback for administrators, for whom it is a minor of administrator tool, and for nonadministrators, for whom rollback is a privilege that is removed at the slightest whiff of misuse. The community should probably align the two, and admins should be sensitive of the fact - as they should be sensitive to the appearance and impact on others of their actions in everything they do.
This whole situation is overblown. Let's go back to writing an encylopedia. Martinp (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

As author. Martinp (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SheffieldSteel

Rollback is not the issue here.
Rollback is very similar to revert. Technically and socially speaking, rollback is available to any editor in good standing. It is more convenient, and less informative, than reverting with an edit comment. As such, use of rollback may be detrimental to a collaborative editing environment. This is why our guidelines state that rollback should be used either where there's no need for explanation (e.g. reverting vandalism) or where the rollbacker provides an explanation elsewhere. Jclemens did provide an explanation[49].

Reverting was the wrong course of action
For reasons of transparency, it would have been better for Jclemens to have struck out those AfD contributions rather than reverted them, and ideally that striking out could have been accompanied by a short note explaining to readers of each AfD why that contribution had been struck.

Users who endorse this summary:

Jclemens (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
striking with a short note would have been much better. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Template

1)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 :#I think this characterisation of Jclemens' actions is fair. Perhaps he should submit himself to a recall RfA? [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 15:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 :#I don't believe I have ever had any problems with this Admin. I see him edit quite frequently, but haven't seen any problems. However based soley on this complaint, I would say that he is out of line. So I support. '''[[User:PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow|<font color="669966">Pop</font><font color="3399FF">Music</font><font color="9966CC">Buff</font>]]''' <sup><font color="black">'''[[User talk:PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow|talk]]'''</font></sup> 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
+#Pretty poor of an admin to rollback a users !votes on just because he thinks they delete too much. [[User:Prom3th3an|Prom3th3an]] ([[User talk:Prom3th3an|talk]]) 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 === Questions<br> ===