Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC).

Jclemens (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Cause of concern

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

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

His justification for the rollbacks was that a userbox that I had recently created constituted evidence that my !votes on these AfD's were in bad faith, and were disruptive. In particular, Jclemens was concerned that I had gone through the current list of AfD's tagged for rescue by ARS and !voted to delete many of them (although my !votes clearly all had sensible deletion rationales backed up by WP policy). Jclemens made no attempt to discuss the situation with me before reverting my !votes, but he notified me of his actions afterwards here, and ordered me to cease contributing to AfD's which were flagged for rescue. In addition, that same message he left on my talk page included an admission that he noticed I had voted Keep on one of the AfD's, a clear indication that my !votes were likely not in bad faith.

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

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

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

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Desired outcome

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

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

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

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

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

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

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

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

SnottyWong talk 23:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wolfkeeper 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

I'll endorse this statement insofar as this action is very troubling from an editor with Admin rights. However, everyone has bad days, and this appears to be a single event. At this time, I don't see this concern needing to be taken further than the current AN/I discussion.[48] / edg ☺ ☭ 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a single event. I also had a protracted situation with Jclemens several months ago. He displays a basic pattern of disrespect in situations where his opinions are disputed. A good example is the aggressive manner in which he made his points at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Essay_Tag. That said, he is generally a good and helpful editor, and the encyclopedia has benefited from his presence. While Wikipedia's "orange" pillar states: "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner," a lot of editors get hung up on the letter of WP:CIVIL and forget about the respectful part. Jclemens appears to think that:
- editors adjudged in his eyes to be violating guidelines or policy are not deserving of respect
- good faith is something one has to earn (his words), not something assumed from the start. This shows in the way he quickly jumps to accusations: "Dishonesty neither helps your cause nor demonstrates good faith" and "Oh, and don't lie."
- admin are not subject to the rules of us common folk. While WP:ROLLBACK's application to administrators is under discussion, another example is that although he accuses other editors of lies and various other violations and defends his own actions as justified and CIVIL, when it happens to him he considers it uncivil enough to include in a WP:GS report (see Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#User:Simon_Dodd). The double standard is clear.
For an editor, the above behaviors are unacceptable. For an administrator, they are egregious. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 03:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that administrators should be held to a high standard, and this is clearly well below that standard. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated at the ANI page, this is quite obviously a breach of the trust we place in administrators. I think Snottywong's !votes were in good faith, and to treat them otherwise is pointy. Not discussing the issue with the user before rollback rights were used makes this a clear case of cowboy adminship. Claritas § 08:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a bit premature as the AN/I thread is still ongoing, but I'm comfortable signing on to this. AniMate 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this characterisation of Jclemens' actions is fair. Perhaps he should submit himself to a recall RfA? Fences&Windows 15:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I have ever had any problems with this Admin. I see him edit quite frequently, but haven't seen any problems. However based soley on this complaint, I would say that he is out of line. So I support. PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty poor of an admin to rollback a users !votes on just because he thinks they delete too much. Prom3th3an (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a unique event, editor is clearly far to involved with the ARS and assumes bad faith too quickly. Verbal chat 18:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Jclemens acted inappropriately here. Especially after entering into a dispute with Snottywong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up, he should not have undone Snottywong's AfD comments, much less with rollback, which amounts to (mild) abuse of administrator tools. The correct way to note one's disagreement with or objections to an AfD comment is to say so in the AfD, not to remove the comment, which is simply disruptive. Sandstein 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a regular editor performing these actions and reacting in the same manner would already be placed under a number of sanctions, including removal of rollback rights and possibly temporary removal of editing privileges (i.e. blocked). That an administrator is allowed to blow off these actions with no repercussions is indicative of a double-standard for admins, a group of editors who should be held to higher standards, not lower. ElKevbo (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initially was disinclined to certify this, however Jclemens response has been far less than satisfactory and unbecoming of one who is an administrator. His remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up towards Snottywong AND others are troubling, particularly one who also deals with closing AfDs, and his remarks in the ANI seem to continue to disavow his actual error and continues to try to excuse it away. He clearly misused rollback, refused to undo it when multiple editors pointed this out, and engaged in a horrible spat of wikilawyering by claiming that WP:INVOLVED isn't relevant because they were "different" AfDs than the one he was having an active argument with Snottywong. His response that if he could do it over, he'd just tag Snottywong's remarks as "SPAs", are even more troubling, as Snottywong is clearly not an SPA account. The overall bad-faith remarks, claim that he was "defending the AfDs", and continued claim that he isn't an "ARS" member while clearly supporting their activities, forces me to question his neutrality in the issue of AfDs and his overall suitability as an admin when he is unwilling to admit his mistakes and properly correct them. The ANI thus far is proving ineffective as Jclemens clearly feels he really did nothing wrong. As such, I feel there is a cause for concern that needs to be examined and addressed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anma says it quite well. Badger Drink (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

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

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

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

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

Response

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

Response to concerns

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

I am starting to get the feeling that this an attempt at drama mongering by a few users here. Although I don't agree with Jclemens' actions, taking this to RFC while there is an ongoing AN/I discussion is a bit concerning because things like this should be focused into one venues which will make it easier to follow. I support his answer because he did it in good faith but we all have bad days and this is a bit excessive in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first part, not the second - Snottywong's actions are not the issue here. If we can rollback the AfD contributions of any editor who follows the rescue tag and !votes in a particular way, many members of the ARS would never be able to contribute to AfD ever again. However, whilst I don't agree with the reverts of AfD commentary, that's hardly enough to force an RFCU. This could all be sorted out without any drama. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This business seems contrary to our policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground and this RfC seems to be a game playing way of extending the conflict rather than resolving it. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable position. RFC/U has routinely been abused in the past, and there is no reason for it to be misused now. Collect (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A1.: Q. Are you willing to 1) assert that each edit was a good faith !vote and not based on the presence of any of the articles in a list, and 2) refute the initial wording of the userbox which I interpreted as clear evidence of bad faith !voting? Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A2. Then I would indeed be willing to revert myself now, and would have been at any point where this had been asserted. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note that this question has also not been answered. SnottyWong talk 13:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

A.: In hindsight, I agree with the feedback that I should have not taken action myself, and that the choice of rollback was poor, as I have expressed elsewhere, e.g. in endorsing two of the "outside views", below. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A.: No. I don't see how any such action would be helpful, for any number of reasons, the most important of which is your answer to my counter-question above. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Jclemens, several editors have expressed concern over your comments to Snottywong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up. Do you think that your comments there were polite and respectful, in keeping with Wikipedia's code of conduct?

A. Please clarify which comments you find objectionable. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple question: Do you think that your comments (all of them) there were polite and respectful, in keeping with Wikipedia's code of conduct? Yes or no? ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 01:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Do you acknowledge that your claim of "disruption" by snottywang was incorrect, and a failure to WP:AGF? Verbal chat 10:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. I took action based on how I saw the situation at the time, with the evidence I had at the time I took it. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Do you acknowledge that your that SW's !vote were based on the articles and were not "pretextual"? Verbal chat 10:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. See the 2-part question above. He has asserted that they were, in fact, issued in good faith, and I have no special knowledge with which to dispute that assertion. I've never disputed that the !votes articulated policy-based reasoning. This whole situation would have certainly turned out different if he and I had had that part of the conversation immediately after my response to his !votes. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Do you acknowledge that your removals of valid AfD !votes was itself disruptive? Verbal chat 10:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Does appear to have had that effect, and I was rather surprised that it was so widely regarded. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Do you acknowledge that your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up were inappropriate and uncivil? Verbal chat 10:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Please specify which comments you regard as incivil. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Although you claim not to be a member of the ARS, will you concede to being highly active and involved in the project - moreso than than the majority of its signed members? Verbal chat 10:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. No. I really don't care about the ARS as an organization. I use its list to occasionally see things that need rescuing, but I'm more likely to use DELSORT to select AfDs for participation--in fact, I came to the "50 cutest" AfD by way of the Television DELSORT, and it wasn't added to the rescue list until after an ARS member had come to the AfD and noticed my work. Article rescue is the obligation of all Wikipedians, and I am completely unashamed to list my "rescues" on my user page, including with a userbox I designed and which was adopted by the ARS (and subsequently had erroneously included me in by category as an ARS member, even though I specifically and consistently rejected that definition), and use every tool at my disposal to improve articles facing deletion. You will find my AfD rationales complete, policy based, and diverse (though probably with a penchant to say "merge" when many others would say "delete") and far from the blanked inclusionism some have accused the ARS of having. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

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

Outside view by Collect

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