Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Cla68

Cla68
Just stopped by to express how pleased I am that you're running. You are a man of formidable intellect and honorable character, Cla68. And you don't know how close to the truth you really are...bonne chance et Banzi!;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Was a member of the Advisory Council on Project Development. Will have my Oppose vote. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My my, you are on a one-issue crusade aren't you...or rather a non-issue crusade.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Analysis
A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68. Franamax (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CLA68 and non-Adminship
Please, please, please link to CLA68's Request for Adminship. In the opposers, note who was subsequently found to be abusing alternate accounts on precisely those articles he castigates CLA68 over and consequently community indef blocked, and also  who was subsequently a named party to an Arbitration request against CLA68 (which resulted in SV and CLA68 being admonished, and the original proposer desysopped). Further, the attempts to make reference to certain off wiki sites a sanctionable act failed - and it was further later held that removing links to those sites was not endorsed by existing WP policy - but were nevertheless used to remove comments during the RfA extension, disabling the rebuttal of many allegations made by opposers (of which, any ones that are not unproven were found incorrect). It should be noted that many of the opposers also participated on other RfA's of that period, often opposing on much the same basis, some of which failed and some of which did not. Finally, CLA68's RfA was succeeding until it was extended by request and a sufficient number of opposers were permitted to change the outcome (24 hour period - the extension - before closed as failed. See the tally at top of both examples). Had the RfA concluded when it should, and had not partisan individuals been allowed to participate then, it would have passed. In response to the rationale that by not being granted sysop flags, or by further enquiring why no further attempt was made, I would respond that perhaps such an experience might influence a recipient in not exposing themselves to such an ordeal again. (Gracenotes has never stood for adminship again, although he continues to contribute.) It might, however, make someone more inclined to take up a role where policy is applied fairly and in keeping with existing policy, and to ensure that procedure is followed to allow all viewpoints to be considered. This is my perspective and opinion only - and is not endorsed (as far as I am aware - certainly not at the time of writing) by the candidate. Brickbats to my talkpage. The only praise I would seek is a support of the candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer disputes candidate's statement
This candidate asserts in his answer to a question, in relation to myself: "Also, the real person behind the account, who worked for a political party, made edits using the account to the BLP of a political leader from a rival political party. All in all, probably not the kind of behavior we would like to see in a member of a committee charged with supervising standards of editor and administrator conduct."

The first assertion of the first sentence is entirely untrue. Not merely do I not work for a political party, I never have worked for a political party. Moreover there is no source of which I know which when read correctly justifies such a claim. It is also irrelevant in the question the candidate was asked.


 * I think I should clarify that I interpret "worked for a political party" as meaning earning a living by being employed by a political party. The staff of Members of Parliament are employed by the Members directly and are not therefore working for the political party. Local authority councillors are not paid a salary as such but do receive some allowances for time spent on council business (which is not enough in itself to live on); the allowances are paid by the local authority. Sam Blacketer (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The second assertion in the first sentence, when coupled with the second sentence as it is clearly intended to be, is both untrue and irrelevant. First, the edit of which notice was made (this one), was a reversion of vandalism. It is difficult to see the circumstances in which any user reverting vandalism is engaging in "not the kind of behaviour" we would like to see. Second, if the candidate happened not to be referring to an edit reverting vandalism, he would be wrong. There is no policy, rule, instruction or guidance on Wikipedia which prevents, restricts, impedes, discourages, or counsels against someone in my position contributing content to this or other equivalent articles.

There may be potential issues engaged of which the two most directly involved are Neutral Point of View and conflict of interest, but neither actually does apply. Neutral point of view applies if someone was editing in a way which endorsed a point of view. No-one has at any time suggested that my edits on this page (or indeed any other) themselves endorsed a point of view, or produced an article which was unbalanced. Andrew Dalby specifically refers to my contributions as neutral and describes critics as being unable to assert the contrary (page 142).

Having disposed of NPOV, is there a conflict of interest? The answer has to be no. As above it is manifest that there was no purpose in advancing outside interests here, just the purpose of improving an article about a significant figure in British politics who happened to be in another party. Indeed in political articles it is very rare that WP:COI can be engaged without also having violated WP:NPOV. There is no direct connection with the subject of the article: for that there would need to be direct political competition, which would only happen if someone happened to be standing for Parliament (not a local authority) in the relevant constituency. Holding a party political post in a local authority is not directly relevant to national politics. Membership of a political party has no significance greater than support for a political party. It is nowhere asserted that a supporter of one political party has a conflict of interest in writing neutral content about a subject who is affiliated with a different political party.

It may be true that when one reads a newspaper article covering a subject with which one has a personal interest, it invariably states a major fact incorrectly. However, a candidate for the arbitration committee ought really to check their assertions (which I invited this candidate to do) and to be able to verify where they have fallen into error. I regret that I must strongly urge the community to oppose this candidate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading this back I think I ought to make clear that the issue raised in the first sentence was entirely irrelevant and unconnected to my resignation from the Arbitration Committee. Even had it been true it would not have been an answer to the question being asked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like an error by Cla that could (a) be easily rectified and (b) have been brought up on his talk page prior to here. People screw up; we don't expect to be perfect or right 100% of the time. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you miss the point. Yes, it could be easily rectified, but not if it occurred on the arbitrator's private mailing list. And I did twice invite Cla68 to check this specific answer (which is a relatively short one with only six separate assertions of fact). Getting the facts right, not jumping to conclusions, not necessarily believing what you're told and being able to check things are all essential characteristics of an arbitrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sam did take it up with me by email first, so I don't think he did anything wrong by posting about it here after trying to clear it up privately first. I'm still looking into it.  If I need to change what I said I'll change it and say something about it here also. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the full story supported by sources. Mr. Blacketer, videlicet the person behind the Blacketer account, did apparently only make one edit to the rival politico's entry, but as shown in that copy of the deleted article, he made other COI edits to other articles.  Thus, I stand by my statement.  In fact, if I had been an arbitrator at the time that this sordid story was revealed, I would have proposed a ban of at least one year for Mr. Blacketer. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This claim is totally incorrect. There was and is no conflict of interest (as explained above); it is a complete misinterpretation of policy to claim there is; such a misinterpretation is incompatible with candidacy for the principle body responsible for interpreting policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The version of the article to which you have linked is not the full story. Other versions existed that gave a much fuller part of the story. Part of the full story is in that article's AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. Part of the story is in the article's history and talk page (currently deleted). There was edit-warring at this article between editors who insisted on presenting only the information available in external reliable sources, i.e. mostly wrong information, and editors who insisted on at least including the information from a reliable primary source (Wikipedia diffs) that we are all much more qualified to interpret than the media. Sam Blacketer was attacked for having edited David Cameron's article. The history shows that he only removed vandalism there. The only specific example of a 'problematic' edit that was mentioned in the press was Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones. One technical journalist didn't realise this edit summary was a humorous description of the (funny) vandalism that Sam Blacketer was removing. All the other clueless journalists simply copied from the first. The image that Sam Blacketer removed was one of these two. (I don't remember which of the two it was, and can't check since the article is deleted.) The picture that Sam Blacketer removed, and the serious one to which he reverted, together with an explanation of his edit, were eventually included in the Sam Blacketer article to at least undermine the disinformation from the "reliable" sources while this massive BLP violation was under discussion. Even this was edit-warred against on formal grounds such as "original research". The version to which you have linked has redlinks to the pictures, but without the pictures themselves it's pure misinformation. Except, the fact that even the Daily Mail said the alterations "were not inaccurate or overtly critical" should tell you something. Hans Adler 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth (being roughly what you paid for it), and commenting only because it does directly involve me, I agree with Cla68 on this. Sam Blacketer went to some lengths to distance himself from the original personally identifiable account which identified a conflict of interest, but the conflict of interest remains.  An honourable man would have declared it, and probably most people would have thought that the rather minor office in question was not a strong enough conflict to make a significant difference. I accept the arbitration findings in the Abd case, but there again he chose not to reveal a material fact. This is a poor show. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict of interest involved in someone who supports one party editing an article about someone from a different party (or indeed someone from the same party). You are yourself a declared supporter of one British political party. Is that a conflict of interest for you on any British political article? No, of course it isn't, and you can't support your view by any reference to policy, guideline, or anything. I think you need to remember that this is absolutely irrelevant to membership of the Arbitration Committee. The opinion of cla68 which you appear to be endorsing is that there was a conflict of interest purely in the editing. How can that be resolved with the fact that editors generally can remain entirely anonymous and the recommendation to declare biases is entirely voluntary? In other words, there are probably very many anonymous or unidentified editors who are in exactly the same position, merrily editing away, and you would declare them utterly conflicted out. The issue you have to answer is this: What conflict of interest means I should not have done this this morning? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * PS someone once said it was a perfectly good edit so they clearly didn't see any COI. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * PPS someone once said they would continue to allow drama mongers to control the discussion of things on this site. If one man's opinion negates all others, then this petty passive aggressive soap opera will never end and the project will ultimately fail. Vodello (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Durova case
A while back during discussions of Durova's block of User:!! (see Requests for arbitration/Durova) and the "stalking" mailing list, Cla68 took it upon himself to assert a version of events which was disputed by every single person who was on the mailing list, including sitting arbitrators and Jimbo. Having failed to prevail in (acrimonious) debate on Wikipedia or wikien-l he took his version of events to a journalist with a long-standing agenda against Wikipedia. He then, in my view, worked with another editor who was also quoted in the article that journalist wrote, to ensure that it was cited as the sole version of events in Criticism of Wikipedia. I have no wish to refight old battles, but the pattern of WP:ABF, ignore all contrary opinions, and then got ot he press, seems like an extraordinarily bad precedent in a candidate for ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded to JzG's concern here. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go fir any kind of argument or debate on this. Criticism keeps us honest, but I do not think that someone who sets themselves up as a critic, which you undoubtedly do, is the right person for ArbCom.  This is not to undervalue what you do and the positives in your criticism, it's about the ability to retain sufficient detachment.  I'm afraid I am sceptical about that.  Guy (Help!) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you insist that all Arbcom candidates must swear a loyalty oath to Wikipedia before they are allowed to run, Guy? That's basically what your above argument leads to. Besides being very indicative of an outdated 06-07 mindset, which is completely out of sync with current events.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices
Since Will Beback sees fit to remove this from the candidate statement page... ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued from Comments page

 * Reluctantly oppose. Cla68 has done much to improve the encyclopedia. However, I don't get the sense that he'll have the objectivity needed to fulfill this role well. His answers to Sam Blacketer's questions were terrible. And although he must have an excellent grasp of content policies in order to have written so many FAs, I am troubled by a couple of cases in which his article edits have given seriously undue weight to fringe views: specifically in Eurasian Land Bridge and Polar Bear. On the one hand, open-mindedness towards minority viewpoints is good. On the other hand, arbitrators need to have a keen sense for when they're dealing with nutters. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to provide some constructive criticism, but I'm going to have to take exception with your last sentence. I think this is a mistake that too many editors make, and that is making value or moral judgements on aspects of the topics that we write about.  We shouldn't do that.  We just report what the sources say.  If you believe that I placed undue weight on certain aspects of those two topics that you mention, that's one thing, but it sounds like you're saying that I should have made a value judgement on the merits of those views.  Again, that's something that we're not supposed to do. Cla68 (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking for clarification on what I meant. To clarify, my comment that "arbitrators need to have a keen sense for when they're dealing with nutters" was referring to the people that arbitrators directly deal with, i.e. the people who write Wikipedia articles rather than the people who write sources. And by nutter I mean someone who tendentiously promotes giving undue weight to minority POV. These people present one of the biggest challenges we have at Wikipedia, and many arbcom cases center around how to identify and deal with them.
 * I'm definitely not saying that you're one of those people, but my feeling is that you wouldn't be as quick and effective at spotting them as I would like. Regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of something: Do you have any experiences you can share with us in which you've dealt with a tendentious promoter of minority POV in articles? I'm open to reconsidering my vote. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with someone who wanted to place a fringe or marginal theory in an article. Here, someone inserted a conspiracy theory into this article (Possible cover-up for nuclear war with Iran).  I didn't just revert the editor and tell them to take a hike, because that probably would have just made them mad and escalated the situation.  Instead, I participated in the discussion on the talk page and posted a request for review at the Fringe theories/Noticeboard.  The section was removed, but the editor didn't violently protest, perhaps because he/she felt that some type of due process had been followed.  I think as an arbitrator that's what I would be looking for, not trying to judge the merits of a particular "fringe" theory, but checking to see if the involved editors followed the rules and policies and engaged in good faith collaboration, cooperation, and utilized the independent review forums available (like the Fringe theories/Noticeboard) or the dispute resolution process (content RfCs, etc) to resolve disagreements. Cla68 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That editor vandalized the article, inserting a reference to "wikinazis," in addition to adding a section on the conspiracy theory. The vandalism was dealt with swiftly, but the reaction to the rather blatant UNDUE violation was, in my view, somewhat weak. I think that you were correct in presenting the issue neutrally at the fringe theories noticeboard. However, at no point on the article talk page did you voice an opinion on whether UNDUE was violated. I would like to have seen something to the effect that "yes, UNDUE was violated because of X, Y and Z reason." Apparently, based on the talk page discussion, it took approx. nine days before the conspiracy section was removed, and that was on the basis of it being a copywright violation! No, I'm not at all clear this is an encouraging example of your approach to fringe theories and UNDUE. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but because we don't make moral or value judgements on the merits of any particular topic, we have to let the dispute resolution process run its course fairly and squarely. I can't think of anything that has more potential to escalate a content dispute than making editors feel like they have been treated unfairly. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm talking about one thing and you're responding on something else, and to be frank I didn't think I was being quite that unclear. What's at issue is not making moral or value judgments on the underlying issue, but on the whether text added to Wikipedia is acceptable under policy, in this case WP:UNDUE. The edit in question (adding a section on the conspiracy theory) was a clear case of UNDUE. Wasn't it? If you don't feel that way it's certainly your privilege, but I would appreciate a frank and direct answer on that point. Thanks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors interpret UNDUE in different ways. I probably have a more liberal interpretation of it than some others, but that's what we have the content dispute resolution process for, to help establish a consensus among participating editors, such as was used with the article I linked-to above.  The problem arises when someone deletes material without allowing content dispute resolution to take place, because that denies the editor who placed the content a chance to make the point as to why they think it should be included.  From what I've observed, editors who delete what they consider to be fringe theories too quickly appear to be making value or moral judgements on the content.  Whenever that happens, it often ends up escalating the dispute, and that is very unfortunate, as well as unnecessary. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're engaging in value judgments or maybe they're applying policy to the best of their ability. Do you believe the editors who favored deletion of this text were engaging in value judgments of the underlying subject matter? In this instance, I have no particular opinion one way or the other on the subject matter. I'm totally agnostic. I could swing either way. But I looked at that edit and it struck me as an obvious UNDUE problem. I must tell you I'm baffled by your not wanting to express an opinion on this edit from an UNDUE standpoint, particularly considering that an overwhelming consensus was reached to remove it on that basis. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Thanks again for addressing this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I guess we'll have to disagree. My approach in that situation was to request input by uninvolved editors on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and it worked.  I hope that more editors will take advantage of the different noticeboards to help resolve content disputes, because, as happened in this instance, it is often very helpful in resolving the concerns. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is troubling. The inability to recognize problems with WP:UNDUE could lead to a simplistic "some say the earth is flat, while others say it is round" version of neutrality. One could argue that taking all viewpoints at face value regardless of their prevalence in reliable sources is indeed neutral in some abstract or philosphical sense. But Wikipedia policy requires otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Inability to recognize problems with UNDUE"? If you have a question about my views of undue, please feel free to ask. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you haven't given us much guidance on just what your views of WP:UNDUE happen to be. In one of the above comments you seem to be equating application of WP:UNDUE with "value or moral judgments" or with failure to follow dispute resolution processes. That's not at all what WP:UNDUE is about. I echo JohnnyB256's concern above that "I'm talking about one thing and you're responding on something else." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I also think the example that Cla68 gives is troubling. Dude, if you see someone add crap to an article, get it out of the article. If it was good-faith crap, copy it to Talk and leave a note there. Don't leave it hanging around for days while you wait for the community to give you permission. It is sometimes problematic if a single editor reverts multiple times, but reverting zero times is not a shining example of how to deal with promotion of fringe POV either. As for your comment that "the problem arises when someone deletes material without allowing content dispute resolution to take place" I think it might reflect a lack of experience in dealing with fringe-POV edits. I've boldly deleted fringe-POV material from science articles a lot, and I've seen others do it a lot, and in my experience the bold approach usually resolves the issue instantaneously and does not lead to escalated conflict. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you disapprove of the method, but not the results, also. Well, ok then, but since the material was removed the editor has not tried to edit-war or used any other methods to try to reintroduce it like I've seen other editors do when their edits get reverted out-of-hand, I guess the method used was effective.  I stand by it.  I'll tell any editor who is quick on the revert button with newbie editors who introduce controversial material into articles, to consider carefully what they're doing, because there might be a more long-lasting, albeit initially slower, way of handling it.  Remember, this is a wiki.  Collaboration, cooperation, compromise, and consensus are the default methods we use here. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And those are commendable sentiments. But reading through the talk page and noticeboard discussion, in an example that you provided, it appeared to me that either you had no opinion on whether the added text violated WP:NPOV, or you felt that it did not. I tried to clarify this by asking you whether it did or not violate UNDUE, and frankly your response was not the direct and frank answer that I would want to get from an arbcom member. That raises questions not just on your approach to NPOV but your approach to communication, both of which are significant for arbcom members. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the approach I took in that case. Again, I stand by it as the outcome was successful.  Sorry that I didn't give you the answer that you were looking for.  Also, you didn't ask me any questions about NPOV, so if you feel that it "raises questions about my NPOV" then please feel free to ask them. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that you stand by it. You've said that several times. What you haven't said, and you were asked that directly, was whether you believed that the section that the user wanted to add violated UNDUE (a section of NPOV, as I'm sure you know). Please don't say you didn't give me the "answer I was looking for." That's not correct, as you didn't answer it at all. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time the material in question was added, it was unduly long. If the consensus had been to keep a mention of the conspiracy theory in the article, I, or someone else, would have cut it down in size to at least one or two paragraphs.  The article was promoted to FA-level about three months later. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Lar's comment
Lar, I think your choice of words here have the effect of waving at six people and saying, "I have no respect for some of you." Can you refactor your comment to make your point some other way? Or if you must indicate your distaste for the actions of some opposers in order to say why you support a candidate, can you or say which opposers you are opposed to, exactly? Am I one of them? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your anger is understandable but I'd rather we keep this focused on the candidate, who has been civil and has not indulged in personal remarks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)