Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Jc37

Looking backwards
In a recent RfA, you were the first to oppose four nominators and several supporters who all saw the potential of the candidate, whereas you seemed to only look backwards, wording "myriad levels of deception and rampant socking", which I would find questionable wording even if I believed it was true, but I don't. This is no the treatment of an editor as a human being that I want to see from every editor, but especially from an arb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only was it true, but he admitted it previously.
 * Regardless, thank you for sharing your thoughts. - jc37 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Link please? I hadn't seen that. (Although I am aware of the fully disclosed "Dog/Puppy" Alternate_account) — Ched :  ?  20:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try, but AN/I is a royal pain to find diffs, obviously. My recollection was that he tried to do somewhat of a mea culpa, but that it apparently wasn't enough for the community at that time. - jc37 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Myriad, as I recall from my Greek, means 10,000 or more. I'll settle for, say, eight.  With diffs of the admission to each, please, arbitration work requires such.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well to me it means "uncountable" (which is obviously hyperbole...)
 * As for the rest, Wehwalt, I provided diffs at the RfA.
 * PS is not currently active, is not blocked or banned, afaik. I don't see a purpose to bringing back up his past in this forum.
 * If your motivation is to find out whether you should feel comfortable trusting me to be an arbitrator, I'm content to allow you to look over my contribs and decide for yourself (Presuming you haven't already.) - jc37 05:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These are among your contributions, and I am hoping for better explanations. After all, hyperbole is not favored in arbs, just ask Jclemens about that.  Please answer the questions candidly to the best of your ability, and do not fob people off with "Oh, I answered that someplace else".  Have patience with your voters and answer it here too.  I ask that you now answer the question, with diffs of his claimed admissions, regarding PumpkinSky.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of you understood my remark. I am not concerned about true or false, I intentionally didn't even say who. I am concerned about 1) opposing several trustworthy users, 2) only looking backward, 3) a wording that I am not able to describe politely. That makes three concerns I don't want to see in an arb. Let go of the past, please, I (still) think of the future, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern, Jc is that you appear prone to making snap decisions with insufficient evidence, and assuming bad faith from the evidence provided, in absence of clear diffs and other concrete evidence. I am also concerned that we have a flood of solid content editors leaving wikipedia due to the hostility of the environment and an unwillingness to ever forgive any "sins" ever.  I have concerns that someone on Arbcom cannot view people as growing and changing, becoming ever better human beings in the process.  One's record on WP, absent admin deletion of posts for very limited reasons, is forever.  Most people would agree that the person they were 10 years ago - or even thee years ago - is not the same person they are today.  WP has a bad habit of issuing life sentences to people for misdemeanors, and it concerns me that you may have a tendency to be one of these people.   Montanabw (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is merely a guess, but it looks like you apparently missed out on my comments during the Brer-rabbit situation. These indeed can be thought-provoking situations. (NYB wrote a long paragraph concerning that situation, well before the banning discussion took place, which I vaguely recall commenting on.)
 * Anyway, while I sincerely disagree with your opinion of me (and I think my overall edits in discussions over the years bear that out), you are of course welcome to your opinion. I hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 03:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect. A candidate for arbcom answers a concern that raises legitimate questions not with a thoughtful answer, but by telling the poster that they are ill informed and stupid, to boot.  That sure wins you my vote.  I'd advise you to avoid "guessing" in the future.   Montanabw (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anywhere in your comments where there was a question to respond to, merely your statement of your opinion. So, as response, I merely expressed my opinion. And I don't see anywhere where I suggested you were "stupid". But regardless, if you saw that in my response, I freely apologise, as it was in no way intended. I believe I stated you were free to your opinion. As you indeed are.
 * I said at the top of the questions page, I'm not a politician. So I'm not concerned about "votes", anyway.
 * My perspective on this is merely requesting the commmunity to decide whether they wish to entrust me with some additional tools and responsibilities. If they do, fine, if not, that's fine too.
 * Thank you for taking the time to comment, and to share with me your thoughts and opinions. - jc37 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I supported Jc37's run for bureaucrat but in  hindsight  I  consider it  was one of my  few misjudgments and that  the community  decided correctly. My  decision  to  support was borderline as expressed with  my  lengthy  rationale - perhaps I  should have gone neutral  if not  actually  opposed. Jc does not  get  my  vote for Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions
Questions for Jc37

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)