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:

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Request for Comment: An RFC about the Backlog Elimination Drives has been started this month. Go and voice your opinions! Featured editorial: A Matter of Time: The Future of Backlog Elimination Drives Project News: Over 345 unreviewed articles, 13 at reassessment Good Articles of the Month GA Task Forces: A calmed GA community awaiting for an RFC Member News: 223 members of the GA Wikiproject Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012

ArbCom elections

Hi there,

I just took a look at the candidates page for the upcoming ArbCom elections, and was disappointed to see you're not on it. Am I right in thinking you're standing down and not running again for ArbCom? That seems to be the case with most of the current arbitrators - if I read the page correctly, only Newyorkbrad and David Fuchs are running again. And I can understand why, given what a stressful position it must be, and all the hatred you receive as a result. But your departure strikes me as particularly regrettable, given the circumstances and that you've only been there one year - it looks like you've been hounded out by the mob. For what it's worth, I hope you know that there are many of us who think you're one of the best guys on the Committee, and that ArbCom needs more like you. I believe if you ran again, you would be re-elected. Nominations close on the 20th, so there's still time to reconsider. Thanks for reading, and if you won't reconsider, thanks for your service to the community. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A slight correction--I've been elected twice to two one-year terms, so I will have served the equivalent of one complete term at the conclusion of the year. Thank you for your kind words--I do not plan to let the nomination clock run out without a definitive statement on my candidacy one way or another. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I trust my recent edits will answer your concerns to your satisfaction? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• RE: my question: thanks for the answer, interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilot (Eureka), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eureka (TV series), Savant and Henry Deacon (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) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Captain Underpants AFD

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People you might want to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Captain Underpants. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

More Detail

I realize that you probably will decline to answer this question, and if that is the case I completely understand. However, I figure it can't hurt to ask. I notice several remarks you made, such as:

• ...Committee solidarity is a worthwhile goal, but I haven't really seen it in practice lately, and for reasons that you, Risker, are directly aware of, so the question has a good bit of inherent irony. If I am reelected, I will continue to do what I've always done: Acknowledge the decisions of the majority, while not pretending that my own opinion is malleable on the basis of the rest of the committee's actions. The committee does not speak ex cathedra on anything, and is wrong a good bit of the time. Pretending otherwise does no one any favors...

• ...Well, I used to think that off-wiki discussions allowed for more candor, for arbitrators to simply exchange ideas as peers, but recent turns of events have made me question whether that is even achievable in the face of serious disagreements over the best course forward for the encyclopedia...

• ...More subtly, I also did not intend the level of division within the committee caused by the phrasing I chose. That's something that the community as a whole will not see directly, but it's something that was real, and yet another unintended consequence...

I feel that to some degree the community has a right to know what is going on with the Committee. Can you give any details on what the problems are, or who supports a certain position? The details of how the members reacted to recent events may be important in choosing who to elect. Thanks for your time. Jeff Kilmar 22:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry. You are absolutely right that there are more stories to be told, but while I may be privy to such information, I do not have the unique right or responsibility to share it. I've been informed that there may be a disclosure from the committee members not running for reelection over one matter that is pertinent to the upcoming election. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

While I would expect committee members to be in chorus when the evidence unequivocally supports a specific sanction, for more complex matters, it is best they aren't for only then can we expect a prudent, metered and fair outcome which hopefully comes from a collaborative decision making process.--MONGO 04:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of statement

This is to notify you that you have been named in a statement issued by the arbitrators not running for re-election, regarding the recent leaks from arbcom-l. If you have comments regarding the statement, please post them to the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So, for those of you following things from here, here are a couple of wonderful questions to ask...

• To every candidate: Did you received all or part of the Arbcom-L emails? If so, what did you do about it? When? Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• To the arbitrators not voting on the statement, AGK, Courcelles, PhilKnight, and SilkTork: Was there something in particular that prevented your support of the statement as posted? Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Considering three of them were sound asleep at the time frame the motion was passed and debated, that would probably be one reason. SirFozzie (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the rest of the voting constituency, I think it appropriate to express my disappointment with how this matter has been handled. One of the roadblocks to handling this as an internal matter has been my unwillingness to agree to a non-public resolution until there was an accounting for the origin--not distribution (who did the gmail anonymous redistribution) but the origin (how the email got into non-arbitrator hands in the first place)--of the leaked email. Until the statement was posted earlier tonight, I had no knowledge that Elen had admitted that she was to blame for the redistribution of the whole email, instead of the one-sentence quote that she had admitted to previously. Had she done so earlier, accepted responsibility for her breach of confidentiality, and bowed out of the election, I was prepared to likewise bow out in the interests of encouraging a dignified and quiet solution to the matter, yet one that dealt with both the perceived issue with my original email and the lack of appropriate conduct involved in leaking it to non-arbitrators. I communicated this willingness to the unrecused committee members, but obviously, nothing came of it. The community has expressed its concern with arbitrators email leaking before, and it has a right to know whether someone entrusted with its secrets is willing to violate that confidentiality. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A number of other members of the Committee don't appear to be very happy with you at the moment. Do you think you could try to patch things up somehow? Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I offered to withdraw from the election quietly if they certified that the hole was plugged. But the way the statement was worded--that my saying something on list that people were offended by was at all relevant to another arbitrator's decision to leak that email--should be a very good indicator of how the rest of the committee views me at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and for what it's worth, if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, when one has offended someone, the remedy that usually stands the best chance of working is an apology. I'm not necessarily judging that what you did was wrong, I'm just saying that that is one way to mend fences. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, basics are always the best, eh? I'd have to post at least four separate follow-up emails, which I just might do... but it'd be listening to one side of a conversation. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"I offered to withdraw from the election quietly if they certified that the hole was plugged" - what makes now any different? --Rschen7754 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the hole plugged? Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What difference does that make? I'm not following. --Rschen7754 07:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I volunteered to resign withdraw quietly if I could be assured the hole was plugged. It's now not quiet, and the hole isn't yet plugged. If the one still-attainable condition I placed on withdrawing from the election isn't fulfilled, on what basis would I withdraw? Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So nobody knew why you resigned? --Rschen7754 07:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To correct myself, I've never volunteered to resign. I offered to withdraw from the election. And surely you've read enough other resignation statements to know what would have been said--focus on other interests, etc.--all of which would have been completely true if not the entire reason, and all of which would have served to save face for Elen as well, who would have been writing her own true-but-not-complete account of why she was withdrawing herself. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to post the contents of the allegedly offensive email? I know it must seem unfair for me to ask, but I worry that the sordid allegations and sleazy innuendo will do more harm to your reputation than a full disclosure. Jeff Kilmar 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The original email

(context--both preceding and following--is not provided, as I don't have permission to share it.)

Risker,

It's going to be an issue in the upcoming election, so I wanted to bring it up here first. I will be actively campaigning against those members of the committee seeking reelection who did not vote to ban Malleus. I know that doesn't include you, but I think I owe all those of you who will be affected the courtesy of being up front about it.

Again, I'm not a politician, so this is going to be an issue that I take a stand on because I believe it the single most appropriate discernment measure as far as who is fit to serve on the committee.

There won't be any surprises or sneakiness. I'm going to lay out the question pretty much like I did here, quoting Malleus and all, to each candidate and I would encourage everyone to have their best argument prepared. Consider me asking here first a courtesy dry run, since mailing list conversations have no place in on-wiki electioneering.

I don't want to serve on a committee half-full of people who obstruct appropriate discipline for even the most egregious, flagrant, and recidivist civility violators. I sincerely consider that the biggest failing of this committee at this point in time. So, either the committee tilts one way, or the other, but either way I expect it will probably not be another year like this one.

If I lose, I go out on principle, but will continue to serve the project even if I disagree with the direction. If I win, then I sincerely hope we can enforce some basic principles while prodding the community to shore up its expectations without letting a vocal pro-profanity minority obstruct ANY progress.

(my name)

Obviously, what I said I intended to do in that email hasn't happened to date, entirely because I've been giving the committee time to work on the mailing list leak for the past two weeks or so.

Comments on email

Your message seems ok to me, I guess the question is if you should have used the Arbcom mailing list to send it. I think you should have used personal email. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

... which is why I was kind of baffled by the negative reaction I got, and agreed to drop the line of discussion when asked (rather forcefully and not entirely civilly, I might add, but those emails are not mine to share). I thought the issue was dead until a week later when it turns out the email was leaked and multiple candidates were contacting the committee about it. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been thinking it over for about 30 minutes, and I think the only person who did something wrong here is Elen. I don't think your email to the mailing list was wrong, but I also don't think their reaction to it was wrong. It's understandable that they would be angry for you to say something like that to them. If you stand behind what you said, then be strong about it. Post the email then say, "I understand their anger, but I meant what I said in that email." Then, you guys can hash it out in the election. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I do meant what I said, and I did intend it to be hashed out in the election... which is all where this would have been headed absent an email leak in which at least one of the redistributions included only the next-to-last paragraph in an apparent attempt to make me look as bad as possible. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the battle is on. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion, here. The main problem with what happened with this is the fact that arbitrators are allowed to vehemently disagree with each other. JClemens knows just as well as I do some of the knockdown, dragout fights we've gone through on tough decisions. I don't think it's any surprise to anyone to say this year's Committee has had more then its fair share of sharply divided decisions. What crossed the line was the words "Actively campaign against". Just to use a Wikipedia example, you're in a heated dispute with someone over a bit of text in an article. While you're trying to come to a consensus on what to do with the text, someone says to you "By the way, when this is finished, I'm going to be filing a RfC/RfARb against you and attempt to have you topic banned". Well, that throws any hope of getting consensus right out the window doesn't it? Your first reaction would be "Go ahead and do it. I don't work well when I'm threatened", wouldn't it? It's not that JClemens was going to make civility an issue in the campaign and his statements in his campaign.. it was that he was going to ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN against others who didn't believe the same way he did on the issue. Wiki-politics can't get in the way of settling dispute at the Committee level. SirFozzie (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why my error/suboptimal wording choice/blunder/whatever in choosing that phrasing is AT ALL brought up in the context of discussing Elen's intentional disclosure of protected mailing list contents to outsiders. To quote someone else, "two wrongs don't make a right". Jclemens (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone was asking what the problem was with it. I was responding. As for the other part.. it was providing background, on why the material would be leaked. It's not saying Elen was RIGHT to do so by any stretch of the imagination, only that she did, and what she did. SirFozzie (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(also, just for the sake of completeness, would you post the original email as well? This was the second one at issue.. if you need help finding it, search on the phrase "unwilling or unable to" (if you want, I'll give you a different phrase, I was just trying to give a phrase so you'd find it easy). SirFozzie (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What, was there a second email leaked? Why am I just now hearing about this?! Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The original claim was one line from the first email. Then the full second email got out. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not. I've reviewed all three threads and the first claimed leak was the "I don't want to serve..." paragraph from that above email, and the second leak was that whole email. At no time was I informed that any other email had leaked, and the first assertion of this is in the committee's final statement--the two emails assertion was not present in the draft statement circulated to me approximately 38 hours ago, and I missed the reference to a second email on my initial read-through of the final statement because I was already aware of the then-known leaks and timeline. If I'm wrong, and I did receive notification that a second separate email had leaked, please re-send me a copy of the message I received showing me what I've missed. But what I see here looks like a lot of backtracking, since the community has not proven to be as outraged by the email that we are all agreed actually leaked, so I'm being notified now, after I've disputed the committee's choices in "blaming the victim" approach. I'm not going to play this game--if Elen then confesses that she leaked everything that I ever said, would you expect me to post that? The email that has always been in question has been fully disclosed. Jclemens (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this message is "ok" for a few reasons. While the tone, in isolation, may seem like it is not a big deal, there are other aspects in play. Given how Jclemens has denigrated Malleus and refused to back away from his denigration of Malleus it puts his e-mail in a different context. This message reads as "if you run, I will make it difficult for you", which is classic intimidation. Such a message being communicated privately just reinforces that impression. How Jclemens has dealt with this whole Malleus situation seems extremely vindictive and not the kind of thing I would want to see from any admin, let alone an Arbitrator.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, as it turns out, the one that appears to have been "actively campaigning" is the one that sent private internal emails to unauthorized external recipients.MONGO 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Irony

There is no intended follow-up question to this, I'm just curious from "reading between the lines" - Is this the "irony" you were referring to when discussing Risker's question on your questions page? - jc37 07:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have found Risker's recent conduct towards me in email uncharacteristically and disappointingly hostile, so I found the question quite ironic. I expect Risker would not agree with my characterization, but the future committee members will be able to go back and review the arbcom-L traffic and make up their own minds if they're interested. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My ability to respond...

As is always so inconvenient, I find myself occupied for the next 48 hours with sleep, work, volunteer firefighting (which may or may not involve any sleep), more work, and a previous social engagement, so it will possibly be close to 48 hours before I am able to guarantee any responses. If it's a quiet night at the fire station, I will be able to respond in 18 hours or so. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please resign

Jclemens, please resign from the ArbCom and your adminship, effectively immediate. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for saying please. If you're eligible, feel free to vote against me in the upcoming election. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would never be uncivil. Thank you for replying. I feel you have violated the trust placed in you and the only honourable thing left to do it resign and return to editing articles. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As long are you're being civil, please feel free to elaborate how you believe I've violated anyone's trust. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I will always be civil. I simply don't have it within me to resort to ad hominem. The ArbCom has already indicated that you have disclosed ArbCom-only emails and messages to non-arbcom people. No matter how well intentioned you were this simply cannot be condoned. The circumstances simply were not exceptional enough to warrant such a breech of protocol. Thus, I respectfully ask you to please resign. Love, 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I have never disclosed ArbCom-only emails to anyone, ever. Elen of the Roads has admitted to doing so. I agree that disclosing ArbCom emails to non arbitrators is cause for resignation or removal from the committee, and if I had done that, I would agree that I should immediately resign or be removed from the committee. But the only email sharing I've done is my own, above here, after my right to do so was specifically and publicly endorsed on WT:AC/N. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Would you consider suspending your ArbCom involvement until a more thorough investigation can be complete, one that will hopefully fully exonerate you? Stepping aside for a few days would help a great deal. I see you're a fire officer, so perhaps this is a good time to focus entire on that? As for Elen of the Roads, her arbitrator/adminship must be terminated. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The investigation which was conducted was done by members not involved in the election. As the committee has no open arbitration business at the moment, and likely won't take on any during the election, such would be an entirely symbolic gesture. I've already agreed to not participate in any issues which may arise regarding Malleus Fatuorum until and unless the returned election results show me being reelected, so I'm not sure what else I could do. I have, in fact, been sitting on the news that Elen had leaked at least part of my email for almost two weeks now, so I think I've demonstrated the capacity for patience and non-interference. Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

2 weeks? as in before the nomination period of the AE2012 began? (I understand if you can't answer more specifically.) - jc37 08:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Statement_regarding_recent_leaks_from_arbcom-l, "The Committee was made aware of this on November 13." The first email arrived in my inbox slightly after noon my time on November 13th. I added my candidacy on November 18th. Elen added hers on the 19th. So yes, I ran knowing that Elen had disclosed at least part of my email... and so did she. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Further, in addition to the two candidates who immediately approached the committee with the leaked email (Coren and one other who has not yet to my knowledge self-identified), at least one guide writer was identified by Elen as a person with whom she had "discussed" my email. I understand that later investigations have demonstrated that this guide writer received a copy of the entire message. I just checked, and this guide writer has opposed me, but made no mention of receiving such a privileged email. Folks might want to ask the guide writers if any of them had access to leaked confidential material, and, if so, what they did about it. Jclemens (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Making a few allegedly unwise statements (Jclemens) is hardly the same as maliciously leaking confidential documents (Elen). No deliberative body on Earth expels its members for the sort of candid but respectful email as is displayed above. Jeff Kilmar 08:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the above comment, as a guide writer I publicly state that at no time did I receive any leaked confidential material, directly or indirectly, from Elen of the Roads. --Rschen7754 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

... Thanks for that confirmation. I have no reason to doubt your truthfulness on this, and appreciate your volunteering that you weren't a part of this. Jclemens (talk)

Well nobody cares about us road editors anyway, but I thought I'd say it just in case --Rschen7754 08:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I'm sorry to tar all of those of you who opposed me, presumably most based on my record which has been anything but un-contentious, with the actions of a bad actor or two. Every day this saga goes on I regret it more and more and more... but the "blame the victim" approach is simply not something that should go unanswered here. I'm guilty of being too forthright, choosing my words poorly, and a host of similar sins... but not betraying my promise of confidentiality. And with that, I REALLY DO have to go to bed. Jclemens (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Jclemens and I haven't exactly agreed on a lot of things in the past, but I'm not finding myself faulting Jclemens here and I seriously doubt that asking him to resign would serve any purpose at this point. For one, Jclemens wasn't the one that disclosed the emails (I say that because the IP editor seemed to have been suggesting that he was). I personally don't see any wrongdoing here from Jclemens, and if the community decides that the email content themselves are just absolutely horrible and cannot be abided...there is a conviently timed election coming up where that can be addressed. I don't see the email content itself as an issue; arbitrators are allowed to disagree with one another, and I don't see any issue with an arbitrator using the same method available to any editor, the Arbitration election process, to attempt the address the disagreements. In fact if anything (although I am context-blind here), the heads-up alluded to by saying "I would encourage everyone to have their best argument prepared" seems to be something other arbcom members would probably like to know ahead of time. I just wanted to give my 2¢, whatever that's worth. - SudoGhost 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That is a very charitable statement, and much appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I feel I should point out we don't actually know who disclosed the emails. Per the statement, Elen of Roads has admitted disclosing some, but has denied being the source of some of the other leaks. It therefore could be her or anyone else who was part of the mailing list (as I understand it this is all sitting arbitrators) assuming there aren't any security issues (either with the list or with the accounts). In other words, it's not accurate to say Jclemens wasn't the one who disclosed the emails, since we simply to not know who did so for some of the disclosures. Of course, it also makes little sense to ask all arbitrators to stand down because it's possible one of them (besides Elen of Roads) disclosed the emails and we don't have any significant reason to think Jclemens did it as opposed to someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I suggest that the "lynch mob request" from the OP is, however, clear, and unwarranted in civil and legal society. We know who admits to a major leak (actually - improper forwarding of email content which ought not have been distributed) and that editor is the one who properly should look into resignation, if any. Jclemens seems more the victim than a perpetrator here, but I can see the use of this as a campagin tactc against him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens is mostly a victim of his own failure to communicate effectively or appropriately to draw support for his own positions; ironically, the same problem (in broad strokes) that Malleus has. Both have an unpleasant tendency to cast things in absolute, 'you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us' terms—and once you're 'against us', you're fair game for being marginalized and demonized. For Jclemens, this attitude has detrimentally affected his ability to carry out his aims as a member of ArbCom. (This manifested most recently and spectacularly in his failure to hold support for the motion to ban Malleus for a period of time. The motion was actually passing and had a good chance of being enacted, until Jclemens' ill-considered remarks ignited a firestorm and made it politically unpalatable to be seen voting with him.) One wonders in hindsight just how much his divisive approach has hurt his agenda behind the scenes on ArbCom. Far from learning from this recent experience, it seems from the leaked email(s) that he decided to ramp up his bullying of his fellow Arbs.

Malleus, for his part, tends to phrase "I think this admin made an error" as "This admin is evil and must be desysopped", with predictable results. He sometimes offers up valid points about Wikipedia governance and presents valid complaints about actions by other editors, but they are so often couched in such hyperbolic terms and laced with such vitriol that other editors (admins or not) are reluctant to support his positions. For both Jclemens and Malleus, their divisive and uncompromising approaches make them uneasy and often unwelcome allies to Wikipedia's more moderate voices. To draw an analogy to the recent U.S. election, they're acting the Donald Trumps to the Romney campaign: sure, we mostly agree with him, but we'd rather not agree with him.

The upshot is that in the ArbCom motion regarding Malleus, the case stopped being about whether or not Malleus' conduct warranted the proposed sanction, and started being about whether or not you were on Team Jclemens or Team Malleus. (And I'm fully aware that my comment here will piss off both Teams, and I'm going to be pilloried for it.) I hope I don't (but regretfully expect I will) see this mailing list dispute turn into Team Jclemens versus Team Elen. In practice, both of them screwed up in different ways, and neither deserved to be excused for their conduct nor held up as a 'victim'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)