Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Jclemens

Status on responsibility regarding copyright
There's an intriguing thread on Jclemens's talk page right now regarding his attitude towards the responsibility of individual editors, and the project as a whole, towards copyright violations (originally in the context of relatively recent de-PRODding of at least two articles later established to be largely blatant copyvios, but evolving into a general discussion of the attitude editors should take towards potential copyright violations in articles). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are getting at in the context of this election. Can you elucidate? Are you for him/her or against him/her? Thank you! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the "intriguing thread". It amounts to Chris Cunningham implying a failure of Jclemens to remove copyright violation from Wikipedia and Jclemens defending himself adequately.  Fartherred (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is "inside baseball" stuff. How does it help to decide whether or not to vote for this person? Hm? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Chris has a legitimate difference of opinion with what I believe the responsibilities of various folks in deletion discussions are and should be. We all are agreed that copyright violation is bad, just not necessarily over who is primarily responsible for searching it out and eliminating it.  I think he's approached the topic in a fair and straightforward manner, articulated the difference of opinion politely, and brought it up here in a manner consistent with him believing it has a legitimate bearing on my fitness to serve.  Since ArbCom doesn't make policy and current editorial guidelines don't support his desired new obligation, I don't tend to agree... but Chris did not twist my words or misconstrue anything I said, unlike certain other objections posted here. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Suitability
Jclemens' handling of the abortion case as the principal drafter has been disappointing. Various aspects of the case were misjudged, starting with an unprecedented approach to gathering evidence, which on the one hand was not open to scrutiny and on the other hand ineffective. This resulted in the case being needlessly prolonged and did not seem to help in analysing the underlying problems that precipitated the case, admittedly not an easy one. In these circumstances it is not clear how wise it would be to choose Jclemens to continue for a further year or more as an arbitrator. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm...what do you mean about the gathering of evidence? Colour me confused..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, Jclemens felt overwhelmed by the volume of talk page archives involved in the abortion case. On his talk page, while discussing another matter, Jclemens asked Captain Occam and his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, both under ArbCom sanctions, to help him gather diffs. None of the evidence they provided one week later has been publicly viewable. Diffs singling out MastCell, who had previously blocked Ferahgo the Assassin under WP:AE, were later added by Jclemens to the workshop page. I am not aware that Jclemens has passed on the emails of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam to the rest of ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And so you think that the absence of sanctions my draft proposed on MastCell stems from... what? No sanctions were posted for MastCell because, in summary, he didn't deserve any. Review the workshop to see the interplay. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the workshop page, MastCell pointed out that you had overlooked an email that he had previously sent to ArbCom. You corrected yourself, but it was a misjudgement posting a section on MastCell in the first place. Evidence placeholders were later added for multiple other editors on the workshop page which remained unfilled; that is what I meant by an "ineffective" approach to gathering evidence. As you say, presumably after private interchanges between arbitrators, the case has almost been concluded, but that was not my point. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, why on earth is it relevant here that I was sanctioned in the R&I case 15 months ago, or what kind of personal relationship Ferahgo and I have? Even after ArbCom asked you to stop harping on things like this, you still seem to be taking any excuse you can find to bring me up, or tar other editors for their purported associations with me.  It was bad enough when you were accusing other newish editors of being my sockpuppets, but now I’m seeing essentially the same attitude being directed at a member of ArbCom.  I really hope you aren’t hoping you’ll be able to hurt Jclemens’ chance at re-election with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that all that's bothering you? MastCell exercised poor judgment in deleting material from the case pages that was directed at him--as in, was accusing him of actionable misdeeds related to the case.  It was from an IP address, presumably a banned editor with an axe to grind, and nothing ended up coming of it. Still, patrolling the case pages for such disruptive additions is the job of non-recused clerks, and the right of uninvolved editors, but not the job of parties to a case.  As you note, once I posted a candidate finding on the workshop page, MastCell pointed out that he'd notified the committee about the problem earlier, a message I'd not seen, and I agreed that it did not merit a finding. Nothing anyone else did had any bearing on that: MastCell earned himself the scrutiny by reverting someone else's material accusing him on a case page where he himself was a party.  Honestly, him doing that caused me to spend more time looking at it than I otherwise would have. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My views are expressed in my first statement; others have made similar comments elsewhere. It appears that the majority of MastCell's proposals on the workshop page were adopted in the final decision: his contributions to the case were a net positive. The last message of the banned user   underlines why the possibility of long term semi-protection will probably be part of the final decision. Disruption by agenda-driven IPs cannot be blamed on MastCell.


 * I'm not sure whether it's worth discussing this any further. From the outset I should have probably prefaced my remarks here with the statement that I consider you an excellent administrator and checkuser. As one of many examples, you have been extremely helpful in issues concerning sockpuppetry in Seventh-day Adventist articles. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words on that score. If not retained as an arb, I will have more time to devote to those functionary roles, which I see as a pretty critical skills gap for the project as a whole. (CU+OS+OTRS+time = ability to untangle some truly nasty BLP messes) Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He's probably referring to me asking other editors, including at least one with whom he'd previously been in a dispute, who were not involved in the abortion case to review publicly-available talk page diffs and pick out ones they found the most egregiously uncivil, which I then reviewed and incorporated as appropriate. It was really such a successful experiment that I'd recommend that the committee employ uninvolved yet experienced editors as "investigators" to help sort out large mountains of public evidence in complex cases. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "..at least one with whom he'd previously been in a dispute" — that's what I call a snide remark. Was Captain Occam one of the users you asked? He may or may not have been in a dispute with Mathsci, I wouldn't know about that; I believe he has been in a dispute or disputes with many editors, and his grudge against Orangemarlin is evident in this recent thread, which he started. I hope it won't drag on any longer. I'm finding the discussion between you and myself in the same thread quite disappointing (not saying that's all your fault, but you're the one standing for election). To explain briefly to readers here: it's a discussion about Orangemarlin, who has been seriously ill and is apparently now just of hospital. OM posted a little wave on his own page on 18 November, which has prompted both Captain Occam and Jclemens to insist that OM is now "back", therefore perfectly capable of entering a defense on the Abortion case soonest, therefore it's perfectly fine to treat him just like the editors who have been able to defend themselves during the case. I think there's an animus against OM leaking from the words of them both. In Jc's posts there's also, again in my opinion, a hostility towards those fellow arbs who he considers "soft on incivility"; see e. g. the rudeness to John Vandenberg here, gratuitously referring to him as a "lame duck" in a reply to (ostensibly) me. Anyway, the Wiktionary definition of "lame duck" is here, and Jc's non-apology apology for using it is here. The ostensible reply didn't engage with my own main point (that the state of having "returned to editing" after serious illness is not on a yes/no toggle; see how OM hasn't edited again since the 18?), confidently stating instead that "none of that matters". Later there are some personal remarks about the toxic effects of the way people like me talk. I would like to think this is not a typical display, and that Jc was merely unusually annoyed by my remarks, having already been stirred up by disagreement with some fellow arbs. On the other hand, if people aren't at their nicest when they're running for office, when will they be? Bishonen &#124; talk 01:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
 * You know, I'm wondering how many different venues and ways I'll have to say this: OM's return or lack thereof is entirely tangential to my position, which is that his actions speak for themselves, and his input is welcome but non-essential. All his self-declared return does is remove the excuse that other arbs have taken to duck the civility issue.... that is, unless they move the goalposts and say that his return isn't a return.
 * I can't say that I blame them. I've had more hate directed at me for doing the right thing here than in any other part of my Wikipedia career.  And no, Bish, I'm not playing things down or up just because it's election season.  I'm a WYSIWYG arb: I stand up for what's best for the project, even when it's unpopular, no matter what the season.  Of course, I also make statements that get misunderstood, misinterpreted, or taken out of context, just like I do the rest of the year. For example, I referenced Lame duck (politics), and yet you chose to reference lame duck without mentioning the difference between the two. Why would you partially and negatively summarize a conversation like that? Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please consider that others too may be "standing up for what's best for the project" from their perspective. More importantly, in a collaborative project such as this it's not good for disagreement -- even vigorous disagreement -- to be internalized and regarded as "hate." It will chew up your insides. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Always good advice, thanks. I don't have a problem with folks disagreeing with me, at all.  Happens every day around here.  This election season has seen far more folks assuming the worst in my past actions than I was subjected to last time around, which I'm at a loss to explain, since I was running for the same office last year. It'd be entirely understandable to be opposed based on the positions I actually hold and the things I do, in fact, stand for, but aside from a couple of guide writers, that hasn't really happened yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh. As far as Mathsci's point, I certainly do not think the Arbitration committee should adopt the adversarial approach towards adjudication where the judges actively ignore evidence which one of the two sides does not present. This can lead to absurd results and encourages laziness rather than active participation. And if Jclemens somehow seemed to encourage the collection of evidence by other people, I don't see the problem - even if the people have a bias. After all, any individuals are free to present evidence. Evidence-gathering is not a fear for innocent edotirs. As far as the Orangemarlin controversy brought up by Bishonen: MastCell I have lot of respect for, and I think most people who are really into Wikipedia realize that MastCell is one of the most highly respected users around. Unfortunately in my experience MastCell has never spoken up to say that what Orangemarlin does is wrong. This is a pretty sad fact. More time and emotion has been wasted on Orangemarlin's misbehavior than probably any other user in this encyclopedia. Enough is enough. It really does not matter that Orangemarlin has been sick, because, as I doubt anyone who has interacted with Orangemarlin at length will deny, his uncivil behavior has gone on for a long, long, time. Orangemarlin really does not seem to give a fuck. And that is really not acceptable. It's been said before, at ArbCom, and it needs to be said again, firmly.  II  | (t - c) 12:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell commented on Orangemarlin's incivility on the workshop page and the PD talk page . Mathsci (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens is unfit to serve on the Arbitration Committee
I have had concerns about Jclemens' temperament and attitude towards transparency for some time. I asked a series of questions about a pair of incidents I observed during his tenure that I felt illustrated these concerns. Please refer to my section on his candidacy's question page for details and diffs. I found his answers to be evasive and largely unsatisfactory. In short, Jclemens: To summarize, Jclemens does not answer good-faith questions, assumes bad faith, attempts to write off polite reminders as symptoms of mental disability, does not hold himself to the same standards he demands from others, places no value in transparent decision-making, and ignores humanitarian concerns like serious illnesses among parties to cases. I therefore urge the community to vote oppose on Jclemens. Skinwalker (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Believes that the expectation of accountability that all admins are subject to does not apply to arbitrators, and that arbitrators may ignore good-faith questions for any reason or no reason at all.
 * Refuses to clarify why he insists on private interaction by email rather than on-wiki discussion for topics of public interest that do not involve confidential information. This has grave implications for the transparency and accountability of arbitration.
 * Implied that editors who asked neutral, good faith questions regarding his vote on a Climate Change amendment were conspiring together - and thus were unworthy of an assumption of good faith - and that these editors have social interaction problems that stem from their poor upbringing, or even Asperger's syndrome.
 * Insists on civility from other editors but does not hold himself to the same standard.
 * At the moment, he is pushing for harsh sanctions for the civility of an editor who has been unable to participate in the Abortion case due to extremely serious health problems, and has hinted that this editor's illness may be feigned to avoid sanctions. The rest of the committee has unanimously rejected this call for sanctions.
 * Solicits topic-banned editors to dig up one-sided evidence on editors they dislike, and to forward it to him by email rather than to post it publicly on the case's evidence page. Jclemens later described this "experiment" as a success, and said that he will repeat it in the future.
 * Insults his fellow arbitrators when they disagree with him, and asserts they are "soft on incivility".
 * I understand that difficult arbitration cases can drag on for long periods - however, as the drafting arbitrator, Jclemens' stewardship of the Abortion case has resulted in a nearly 5 month delay. I note that this is the only case on which Jclemens has been the drafting arbitrator.  This is a relatively straightforward case with abundant and clear-cut examples of poor behavior, yet the main point of disagreement and delay seems to have been Jclemens' desire to persecute a seriously ill editor with sanctions that are punitive rather than preventative.
 * Wow. I'm impressed: You've managed to write an oppose in which not a single one of the bullet points is accurate.  As an editor, admin, and arb, I've never claimed perfection, but one of the things that's mystified me about this whole process is that I'm not being taken to task for anything I've actually done wrong, but imagined crimes.  In fact, not only are all of these incorrect, most of them are demonstrably incorrect, and have already been answered in one form or another during this election process. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave you the opportunity to correct any misconceptions I have about your conduct as an arbitrator, and you responded with evasive and lawyerly answers that hinged on rhetorical points of order and ignored the substantive spirit of my questions. At this point, it's not worth pursuing any further.  You can have the last word.  Skinwalker (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. I recommend that everyone try to consider assertions which lack evidence as evidence against the accuser, rather than as evidence against the accused. People should be ashamed about such things and consider it a very black mark in their future in this community . See response below. II  | (t - c) 11:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you read my section on the questions page, you'll see that I provided evidence in the form of diffs for each of the topics I described above. Further up this very page is a discussion of the Orangemarlin issue, also with numerous diffs.  Whether or not you agree with my interpretation of these diffs is your prerogative.  I have nothing to be ashamed of - in fact, I believe that confronting abusive governance is a necessary and healthy aspect of the project.  As for my future with Wikipedia, I don't particularly care.  I have a vanishingly small amount of time to contribute, and at any rate I am very disillusioned with the administrative and governing aspects of the project.  As I said above, I don't feel like pushing this any further, and the voters can now decide on Jclemens' suitability for re-election.  Skinwalker (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you have no obligation to be factual? Your responsibility is only to post Have you stopped beating your wife? questions, and then berate me for whichever answer I choose, or for evasion if I dodge the trap?  I agree, that's your prerogative... but it's a shame.  Take, for example the assertion that I invited anyone "to dig up one-sided evidence on editors they dislike"; that is entirely not true: I didn't ask for and never received any one-sided evidence.  If your response is to assert that the other portion of the question (that one of the editors was topic banned from an unrelated area) is still sufficient cause for concern, then that NIGYYSOB attitude reflects more poorly on you and the nature of your questions than it does on me. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it looks like I skipped over the diffs presented on the questions page - I apologize, Skinwalker. As far as the above I do agree with Skinwalker that the handling of that question from TenOfAllTrades about WMC's sanctions being lifted wasn't very good, and the responses which (eventually) include lying accusations and thoughts on upbringing basically seem uncivil, and it appears that these comments are the basis for many of the comments. In my upbringing, my questions were always answered, even if it is a simple no. The wording by Skinwalker above exaggerates the issues, but it's nonetheless troubling. My interest in this discussion was provoked mainly by things which I have some experience in, and the idea that holding Orangemarlin accountable for behavior was a bad thing - and I'm not nearly as familiar with recent politics or Jclemens. If one is going to take a strict line towards civility and treating fellow editors with basic respect, it's important to not brush into the civility grey area. II  | (t - c) 20:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I should be retained
The level of negative campaigning against me this election has far exceeded last year, quite possibly because those opposed to my values and stances didn't actually envision that I'd win a seat last year. Interestingly enough, the opposition is not particularly based on positions I actually hold. In order to give folks a decent reason to decide on my candidacy, here's my take on what I accomplished this year: Overall, I've learned much from this year on the committee, such that I'm a much better candidate this year than last, and far better able to discharge the duties of the office than any of the newcomers, no matter how well-intentioned and enthusiastic they are. Likewise, having an insider's view of how the Arbitration Committee actually works, I won't promise things that neither I nor any individual arb can deliver. Despite these improvements, the people whom I've offended by doing the best thing for the project don't seem to agree, and a number of them have publicly opposed my re-election. That's their right, of course, but it's my hope that the electorate will see through the half-truths and actually examine my record for themselves. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Advocated taking unpopular disputes that came to the committee's attention. I did not oppose accepting any case that we opened, demonstrating my willingness to take on the tough questions.
 * Pushed for sanctions on users who've flagrantly, serially, and unrepentantly violated civility standards, even when others are making excuses for them.
 * Opposed relaxing sanctions on users who failed to demonstrate learning from their sanctions.
 * Politely but firmly held to my positions in the face of opposition from within the committee, yet been willing to compromise on outcomes and sanctions to achieve the greatest good for the project.
 * Balanced concerns between belief-based and evidence-based worldviews in my decisions, while demonstrating how existing conduct expectations can apply fairly to all.
 * Proactively recused myself (or offered to) with respect to users and topics with which I'd personally been even tangentially involved.
 * Continued to participate in AfDs and DRVs, as a voice of moderation and pushing for ways to retain worthy content by merging or otherwise reconstructing defective articles.
 * Continued to help improve content, working to take some relatively good existing articles to GA despite the unpredictability of time to do so.
 * Failed to overreact at the mailing list leaks, advocating a measured response. More importantly, I had nothing particularly to apologize for in the leaked material.
 * Stood up for the appropriateness of private deliberations, and held to the necessity of keeping email correspondence private, even when one user was actively lying about the contents of our correspondence in an attempt to publicly discredit ArbCom.
 * Worked behind-the-scenes at OTRS, seeing and interacting with a whole different side of project support that is not seen on-wiki.
 * Talked about my learnings from, rather than providing excuses for, the delay in the Abortion decision. Rather than blaming others for the parts of the delay for which I was not responsible, I've accepted my responsibility to drive the decision, and my own failings in doing so.
 * Taken on the Checkuser and Oversight tools and learned their intricacies (well, Checkuser is complex, Oversight is not) by supporting the non-Arb functionaries in their roles.
 * Never gone inactive on the committee, despite multiple periods of extremely high non-wiki time obligations, like working 60+ hour weeks.


 * Jclemens seems like the precisely right person for this job - a skeptical inquirer looking to do what is right rather than what is popular. While it may seem contradictory for me to express support fot the above comments, which lack diffs (and cannot be summarized by single diffs), I think that angry accusations, especially very specific ones, deserve a different sort of consideration than defensive summaries. I hope that Wikipedia members, who are by and large are dedicated and insightful, will be able to see through emotion and see that an independent thinker is important in the Arbritration committee, as such thinkers have been throughout insitutions in human history, despite the difficulties such individuals face. Wikipedia faces a very big problem in its stark unfriendliness and lack of teamwork. Civility is important. It is important to enforce rules. And Orangemarlin is not, regardless of what anyone says, essential to the project. I'm not an enemy of Orangemarlin; we got along OK even if we don't agree entirely (see diff or or two for example). Orangemarlin is basically a very crotchety old man who can cause a lot of distracting, damaging personal attacks. I don't think he would deny it, and I don't think he's unjustified in being irritable. Wikipedia does have a lot of pseudoscience. The internet has a lot of pseudoscience. It's frustrating. But that doesn't excuse a lack of decent behavior.  II  | (t - c) 12:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To my fellow Wikipedians:
 * I also endorse JClemens, despite my having disagreements with some of his initial statements on mathematical/vital issues. His statement above is fair and accurate: He does sometimes state "outlier" positions, which help to provoke more thoughtful decisions (reducing groupthink).
 * JClemens has proved that he will do an honest job and take due care in assessing evidence and discussing issues with an aim towards the good of Wikipedia and the parties to the conflict, rather than in an adversarial or partisan manner. This shows intellect, character, and true grit.
 * I am afraid that the community will over-react to the shameful theft and promotion of confidential correspondence that we have no business reading.
 * There is no evidence that any "fresh blood" would have behaved better this past year, either. Where are the new candidates that have voluntarily published all of their emails?
 * On the contrary, we see abundant evidence that many of the new candidates have difficulty reading and negligible experience writing quality articles. My fellow Wikipedians, you should express anger at ArbCom members publicly and intelligently, if you must, but not by saddling ArbCom with immature editors with little experience, little evidence of sustained effort at accomplishing goals, and frankly of dubious intellectual maturity. How many of the new candidates can you imagine reading through the Global Warming case or the Monty Hall problem case, honestly?
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens would be an ideal Arbitrator in an ideal ArbCom system that I have in mind, one that actually gets to the bottom of a dispute. But ArbCom as it exists today, typically doesn't do this. But then the problem is that Jclemens will still take some previous ArbCom ruling as having arrived at after meticulous investigations. This explains his stance on William's request for the CC topic ban to be lifted. Even without Jclemens this is a problem, as I experienced, so let's not make this problem any worse than it already is. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I made (then later apologised for) a number of critical remarks posted on Jclemens page. They were of course made in the heat of the moment. They were not directed at him personally, or any other Arbitrators. If I might be permitted to comment without breaching a topic ban. I do not know the ins and outs of what goes on here, perhaps just as well. I have only just over a year of experience, and I don't intend to waste my time digging into a lot of old discussions to find out who has had fallings out with whom and what they were over (perhaps that is a obsession with some, but I don't intend to go down that road myself). Old discussions over content are a different matter.


 * Given the scope of the Abortion Arb., and the number of editors it involved, it was a complex case (and perhaps one of the most difficult) and I don't think by itself it should be taken as an example of ability. I have rather more issues with the current process (I'd prefer three drafting arbitrators one selected by each side, and the third selected by the two arbitrators chosen. Also some checks on those involved to prevent them from acting like prosecutors). As it was I was only made aware of the abortion arbitration (which has resulted in a topic ban for myself) after it had been going for some time. Though I have no doubt my talk page etiquete was remiss at points and that some duration of block or ban was warranted in my case. I think given the long drawn out debates on that article, there was a considerable amount of discussion to review, and I'd be surprised if any arbitrator found that easy.DMSBel (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In regard to the incivil behaviour, and very poor example set by one editor, Jclemens is not I believe responsible for a lack of support for his proposed remedy in regard to that behaviour. Benefit to the project and popularity have nothing to do with each other, the one is not measurable in relation to the other. DMSBel (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply for Bishonen

 * [Copied from questions page, hence the confusing mention of "this page".] Casting accusations in the form of rhetorical questions doesn't make them actual questions, FT2, and this should have been taken to the talkpage from the start. Though I don't suppose your classic question-begging techniques will... oh, never mind, just move the whole shooting-match to Talk. This page is for bona fide questions. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your help over these many years Bishonen. You're right, unevidenced accusations in the form of polemic wouldn't be any help in assessing a candidate's suitability. Specific checkable Arbcom emails, with dates and email cites provided to allow easy verification of misconduct, and asking the candidate to explain their acceptance of it, makes rather better evidence and that's what we have. FT2 (Talk 17:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, thank you for your inspiring clarion calls for integrity over the years, FT2. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Question from FT2
Hi,

This question is about a dubious case held by email, so I'm asking all candidates who were sitting arbs. My apologies for timing (see "notes").

Cases held by email or involving private information need special care since they lack public scrutiny. In a major email case this year any arbitrator applying basic due diligence would have spotted very serious errors. Instead you ultimately went along with the following lapses on your watch.


 * No proper case was presented although repeatedly requested, nor evidence backing defamatory claims.


 * The party received evasive and ultimately dishonest answers from Arbcom to inquiries.


 * No actual firm evidence that would stand the light of day existed on the discussed matters. You did not protest at the unsupported or unchecked claims, claims deliberately never specified or evidenced, or matters formally consulted, disclosed, and endorsed by arbs and equivalent, that can at best be seen as legitimate differences over approach.


 * The Committee tried to backtrack and break its word (or argued it hadn't agreed when it very explicitly had) - multiple arbs knew this.


 * The Committee did not act over non-neutral arbs with heavy involvement in the issue, later found not to have recused. (As came out afterwards.)


 * You did not openly protest at the refusal of fair hearing, nor at the tendentious way these were gamed - such as refusing for 6 months to provide details of defamation or any formal case, then claiming untruthfully they had been sent, finally then claiming the matter was closed so none needed to be provided, and other steps taken by the Committee to obstruct fair discussion.


 * You did not protest when your colleagues showed a gross breach of neutrality by revealing their eagerness and desire to find something actually wrong and their despair at being unable to do so.


 * You either didn't check "facts" in the case yourself, or protest at Committee emails that were grossly in error or "straw men". (Your colleagues didn't check basic facts much either.)


 * When the Committee engaged in strenuous bad faith and games and could not be persuaded to cease, you didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen.

We trust Arbitrators to make evidence-based and fairly considered decisions in private and check facts. If the Committee fails at this and abuses its trust we need arbs who will prevent it.

The lack of genuine case, evidence or reasonable discussion, and its replacement by unfounded defamatory claims, pretexts and assumptions, was a lapse to a point that you as a diligent member should have expressed serious concerns. You should have sounded the alarm externally. But you did not. You were silent.


 * 1) The Committee sent a proposed AC/N statement in December 2010 stating the Committee "has become aware" of some matters, worded as if to imply something hidden. This was grossly misleading since I had myself notified the Committee almost 2 weeks before, in accordance with usual standards, to check if the matter should be disclosed. The Committee's email - containing a 24 hour ultimatum - was delayed nearly 2 weeks then sent at 1 AM UTC on the Saturday of the one weekend I had specifically said I was unlikely to be able to receive or read email.
 * 2) A second email in January 2011 (same matter) was also grossly in error. Its contents were blatantly contradicted on Arbcom's own records and agreements, to the extent that any diligent Arbitrator checking however briefly would notice. Again it seems no fact-check took place.
 * 3) In January 2011 a blatant defamatory statement which I won't repeat here (same matter) was made in a Committee email. I asked the Committee to let me know specifics and evidence. The reply was a "straw man" giving no comment on the specific defamatory claim I asked about. I asked again, pointing out that an opinion of this defamatory kind needed to be evidenced; without details I could not respond. It was clear and specific as to the defamation  being asked about, but the reply was again evasive as to my actual question. I asked a third time for details to back up the defamatory claim -- and was surprised now to be told it had been answered "repeatedly and at length", which was categorically untrue and the Committee knew it . So I pointed out that I had merely received emails answering questions I hadn't asked. The next reply appears to be a subtle coercive threat based on an assumption I would not wish details made public and stating an answer would only be provided - if I insisted - publicly. I ignored it and pointed out (5th attempt to get a reply) that if a reply had ever been written as claimed to my actual inquiry then anyone could cite a date it was sent or forward it, but the Committee would be unable to as none had been. Awkward silence fell. The Committee, and every Arbitrator on it knew the Committee's claim of having sent details backing the defamatory comments were untrue.  To a final request to back up the defamatory claim it had made over 6 months ago, the Committee's response was effectively dismissive, a one line statement that any defamation resulting from the Committee's statements or handling was not the Committee's problem. No explanation, case, or evidence backing any defamatory claim had been sent in all that time.
 * 4) In the same issue as above, the record shows the underlying matter was legitimate and consulted, and considered by those in senior positions as being correctly consulted, handled, and endorsed. Names, cites and checkable details of those users were provided. At least one arb with close knowledge stated this as well. That should have been the end of the matter. It would have been on any neutral review of evidence. Several had placed their view on verifiable record, including a member of WMF staff. The Committee not only continued to maintain an impossible claim that the matter was a unilateral decision (against the evidence of many users of senior standing who had endorsed or been consulted) but also "circled wagons" around a sitting arb who had been involved, consulted, and had endorsed and "signed off" on the matter.
 * 5) Specific tactics were apparently discussed to frustrate ongoing attempts to obtain a proper case statement or hearing.
 * 6) In March 2011 an arb apparently stated "The trouble is that (the user) does deserve a hearing" - evidence that none had been given. (And why would giving a hearing be "trouble"?)  Similarly to cap it all, it seems that after most of the above, a sitting arb then commented that they would have "loved it" if there had been evidence of a specific wrongdoing. If accurate this makes clear that there was an eagerness to find some fault although in reality there was nothing but high quality conduct. No wrongdoing had ever existed - one does not express a wish for evidence to exist if it already exists. More seriously how can any arb be "neutral" who is expressing how they would "love" to find adverse evidence in their off-wiki communications? Other arbs had apparently also expressed such a wish.
 * 7) Instead conjecture - mostly wrong - filled the gap. Grossly wrong assumptions were apparently made in secret and treated equivalent to evidence, but with no checking of their accuracy, and with no notification or opportunity to rebutt with good evidence.

Checkable details (dates, cites, etc) sent by email; I will gladly hear explanations off-wiki to avoid placing you in any privacy-related catch-22. Errors will be retracted a.s.a.p., though I expect none. I accept I can't know what you did internally, that's only one part of it. Ultimately you were not diligent, did not protest firmly, or acquiesced in allowing gross errors and clear abuse to go ahead. Facts stated can be unambiguously substantiated, mainly from Arbcom's own records. Straw men (ie arguing points I'm not actually raising, as happened in this case off-wiki) will be met with disclosure as needed to show accuracy of statements, and if needed, with Jimmy Wales' recommendation of public scrutiny of the matter such as RFC. Impersonal pronouns used at times to keep it neutral in tone. Defamations and underlying case specifics not posted to keep the focus on the issues of arbitrator responsibility which is what matters here. I apologize for the timing, which should have been earlier (I had hoped to have it done well in advance for 31 Oct).

That reflects poorly on your conduct as an arb in 2010 - 2011. It seems you can be cajoled into placing "standing together" in a Committee above integrity, and you don't diligently check facts or Committee emails. You are asserting that you can be trusted to hear cases conscientiously, neutrally, fairly, to a very high standard, and watch for the community over Arbitrator standards in non-public matters, for another two years, but these inevitably raise doubt.

FT2 (Talk 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The start of this saga (which was never a case, to the best of my knowledge) predates my election to the committee. Indeed, we were at one point running with (against?) each other, near this time last year.  As such, the principal events predated my tenure, and the discussion about what to do about the situation after I was appointed was generally amongst the senior arbitrators.  Since you've apparently asked the same questions to four other arbitrators who were there for the entire series of events, I think I'll defer my answers. I reserve the right to answer the question more fully later, but it is conceivable that a complete explanation of this matter may require your permission for disclosure of private material.  Would you grant that permission if it became necessary? Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in re-reading the above, I don't see a specific question. Is it anything more than "Can you please explain your actions or lack thereof"? Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much the question. But I'm asking you why you didn't call time on it. These things happened on your watch. Although the initial events predated your tenure, the gross mishandling this year did not (eg the defamation and subsequent gaming all happened from January 2011), and I am asking why you as one of our best, those with integrity, didn't speak up when events so clearly showed mishandling? Isn't excusing it by basically seeming to say you just went along with so-called "senior" arbitrators' questionable behavior the plainest evidence of lapse? Didn't you ever check the correctness and factual basis of emails the Committee drafted? Did you not notice valid case questions incoming and evasions outgoing, or that colleagues virtually never actually discussed confirmed hard evidence or gave "normal" straight replies? Where was your diligence, for the community as well as all involved persons? Why, when you had no real way not to have seen enough clues to have the thought it was badly suspect, did someone whose role requires great wiki-awareness and integrity and a fierce care for our project and its norms, elected to a position of "final resort" over disputes, ultimately opt to stay silent and go along with it? In light of the fact you did, a request to be trusted in that role of care and scrutiny in 2012 - 13 needs some explaining of apparent lapses in undertaking the role in 2011.


 * This was the core role. It's why we have such scrutiny over appointments, because the community and all users have to trust arbs do right "in private" once elected.


 * As said the aim is purely to get clarity on your request for a further term given the repeated failure to perform the role properly this time round - so if anything privacy-related would clarify but you feel you cannot talk about it here, allude to it in email or ask colleagues, or something - my word that if you need to, any good-faith explanation in email with a request to keep private will go no further and will be quickly and fairly responded, or reflected in a (non-privacy-breaching) post on-wiki if it genuinely explains anything. I fear it cannot but that ball must be left in your court. FT2 (Talk 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me be perfectly clear here: Until and unless I receive your permission to specifically and completely disclose private material which I expect to be damaging to you, involving your conduct as a functionary, which may well lead to community sanctions on you despite the age of the conduct, I'm not free to answer the question. My recollection of the case (I no longer have ready access to the online archives) is that the discussions in 2011 were substantially about how to keep you from ever getting access to the functionary tools again, given what was perceived as a gross breach of trust, without the drama of an after-the-fact case which would not prevent future misuse, since you no longer had functionary tools when evidence of the misconduct was uncovered.  Do you want the genesis of that dispute aired in public?  If so, then I will answer your questions in full.  If not, then my brief description of my recollection is all you will be getting. You've now posted a rant to five individuals, accusing each of us of gross malfeasance without any evidence.  Would you like to see the evidence posted publicly, or not?


 * I should be clear in turn. I don't do things I would be ashamed of publicly. I would wish to consider how to handle the matter properly but my own preference would be daylight and the judgment of neutral users or the community, if the Committee were agreeable. I do agree the debate got toxic and polarized; it's inherent that where one side acted in a way that appeared dishonest or gaming, the other would feel a need to rebut more firmly, leading to strong divisions.


 * I would not make claims I could not support on a public venue like this, nor so specifically, nor if there was anything to hide. As I don't, you have my exact concerns and your suggestion of letting the entire matter be dealt with openly in public is acceptable in principle. I will say your colleagues internal "take" on the matter is badly flawed and I think they (and you too) have enough evidence to see that, if seen from scratch and in context.


 * It's accepted you are bound by privacy. That's why I said I'd be fine accepting a valid explanation why Arbcom's conduct in case handling wasn't dishonest, wasn't gaming or why case handling was fair. You can give me that by email if you like, or outline it here, or we can present the entire background to neutral parties or the community if preferred. However the underlying case issue itself is all separate from WP:ACE and your conduct as an arb. Above is a clear summary of where case handling was dubious or dishonest. You have exact dates and cites for each in email. That's the issue for today. You don't need to break privacy for that. What you do need to do is explain why you, as a sitting arb, did not take action when you saw such case handling, why you allowed emails as described to be sent with your apparent approval, and what that says about your handling of the role in 2011.


 * FT2 (Talk 01:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about me just linking to the place on Wikipedia Review where all of this was discussed, by way of background? (The irony being, that, post-leak, that's an easier place for me to find this content) That seems like the simplest way to get the background out in the open, but I would like you to find and review it first to make sure it's not misquoting you in any way, or otherwise mischaracterizing the email you sent. Does the thread in question (which I will not link to here, but I'm sure you can find it) accurately represent your correspondence with the committee up through 2010? I have copies of everything since my appointment in my personal archives. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As it's not clear if you are requesting verification of anything on WR about the original email, links to leaked emails that are salient, the dialog prior to your appointment, or background for statements about Arbcom case handling, I'll summarize all of these by email and please let me know by return which you need more clarity on.


 * The fact the leaker provided corroborative evidence to my benefit does not make any of his/her actions even slightly more acceptable. It was a gross breach of trust and I would not willingly link to or give it oxygen if you paid me, since I can point you to the original list versions instead. Assuming the few parts I took note of are accurate (based on Arbcom and others' reactions and the context) you already have exact snips by email so a search the usual way in your usual email will do what you need.


 * I would underline though that the actual case is a distraction here; the issue at ACE is why the unambiguous gaming and other case lapses by arbitrators during case handling were allowed to happen repeatedly on your - or anyone's - watch. FT2 (Talk 13:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Casting accusations in the form of rhetorical questions doesn't make them actual questions, FT2, and this should have been taken to the talkpage from the start. Though I don't suppose your classic question-begging techniques will... oh, never mind, just move the whole shooting-match to Talk. This page is for bona fide questions. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
 * (Side-thread replied on talk page - FT2 17:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

I have moved this thread to the discussion page, further discussion on this topic will likely breach privacy policy.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)