2012 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status
This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2012. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012.
Please endeavor to remain calm and respectful at all times, even when dealing with people you disagree with or candidates you do not support.
Current and potential candidates may find it useful to read an FAQ written for 2010's election by Arbitrator Risker.
Questions for Beeblebrox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Carcharoth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Coren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for David Fuchs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Elen of the Roads
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens from the questions section:
On this, we agree. The "Not a Wikipedian" statement was both asinine and illuminating. Count me as one that will be doing his best to be pounding the Jclemens candidacy into the dust... Strongest possible oppose. Carrite ( talk) 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
That they think it sensible to submit themselves for election so soon after they have massively divided the community and have taken a pounding even from people who do not generally form part of the pro-Malleus crowd just blows me away: we need pragmatic arbs, not dogmatic ones. I've been asked to re-read their statement on the affair and will do so but, really, no explanation after the event can get round the fact that there was a glaringly obvious missed opportunity during it. Like it or not, this candidate is going to succeed or fail here on the basis of their recent actions. - Sitush ( talk) 14:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
As an aside: This is one very big community. While there has been disagreement on the appropriateness of Jclemens comment, it it no way has split a community as large as this one. We have to be careful it seems to me on all counts to not misjudge the community's, as a whole, interest in one statement.( olive ( talk) 18:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC))
My concern with Jclemens isn't with his views on policy. I suspect that his general views on Wikipedia governance and mine could probably get along fairly well. For the record I also believed that the motion to temporarily ban Malleus was a regrettable but necessary step. The problem that Jclemens has is that his approach to disputes makes him an ineffective and even counterproductive advocate for his positions. Broadly speaking – and with more than a little irony – this is the same problem that Malleus faces. Both Jclemens and Malleus have demonstrated a tendency to cast disputes and disagreements in 'you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us' terms; those editors they categorize as 'against us' are fair targets for marginalization and demonization.
It's worth remembering that very shortly after Jclemens' now-infamous "not a Wikipedian" comment on the motion to temporarily ban Malleus, that motion had actually been likely to pass: holding a 7-vote majority in favor with just 2 Arbs against. Within a day, three oppose votes (all explicitly disavowing Jclemens' comment) and an alternative motion appeared. Shortly after, the motion to ban fell below the threshold to pass, and never recovered. By turning the discussion from what Malleus had done to what he believed that Malleus was, Jclemens needlessly personalized the debate. The case stopped being about whether or not Malleus' conduct warranted the proposed sanction, and started being about whether or not you were on Team Jclemens or Team Malleus. Jclemens still doesn't seem to grasp how large a role his own comments had in reframing the way the motion was considered, and ultimately in the motion's failure. Like Malleus, he puts potential allies in the awkward position of having to say, "we mostly agree with him, but we'd rather not agree with him."
I'm torn by his recently-revealed misuse of the ArbCom mailing list. I can't tell whether it was deliberate dirty pool, or just execrably poor judgement. There is no question that Jclemens stood to personally benefit from discouraging other candidates running in this year's election. In the last two elections, he has only been seated on the ArbCom by the skin of his teeth—in the 2010 election he received the fewest supporting votes and was effectively tied for the worst percentage support of any successful candidate, while in 2011 he received the lowest support by a substantial margin and made it aboard only because an additional seat opened up after the nominations period had closed. Jclemens ought to have been aware that tipping the balance in even one potential candidate's mind against running might make the difference between an election win and loss of his seat. It is quite apparent from Jclemens' response that he never expected that his 'warnings' would ever see the light of day on-wiki, presuming that the secrecy and privilege of the ArbCom mailing list would provide even greater protection from disclosure, discussion, or mention than, say, a regular email or any other off-wiki mode of communication. In other words, he expected to get a free chance to knock out some potential competitors for his seat and distort the upcoming election, without having to face any open discussion or scrutiny of his own tactics.
Now was that actually what he thought when he put hands to keyboard? The alternative is that he was venting—telling his fellow Arbs that he was pissed off and issuing a "You'll all be sorry!" rant after he helped snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If it were purely that, the timing seems odd; his messages were sent two weeks after the Malleus motion closed, when even the hottest blood ought to have had a chance to cool. Even if it were only that, it shows a gross failure of the collegiality with which we expect functionaries to conduct themselves. I have trouble crediting Jclemens with a sufficient lack of awareness, though. Is it entirely plausible that, in the process of writing multiple messages 'warning' other potential candidates about how he intended to conduct his election campaign, he had no thought for the effect it might have on his own election? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
* Jello carotids ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Why is Jclemens using his election campaign to renew his WP:BATTLEGROUND attacks on me? His short statement above is evasive and entirely misrepresents what actually happened. [1] In a prior act of misjudgement, Jclemens had wiki-befriended the DeviantArt group who were later sanctioned in the R&I review (Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin & co). Their shenanigans were pointed out by me and, prior to that, by Shell Kinney. Jclcmens seems to have assumed that, if a group of editors had been acting deceptively, as they had, the person pointing that out must have committed even worse acts of deception. That was flawed logic. As checkuser Jclemens knew that the SPI request by Jello carotids had been made by a sockpuppet of the community banned wikihounder Echigo mole. The SPI request had already been reverted by Future Perfect at Sunrise, not by me as Jclemens implies. [2] That Jello carotids was a sock was obvious per WP:DUCK. My alternative legitimate account, used for gathering diffs for the R&I review, was clearly labelled M·a·t·h·s·c·i to stop Echigo mole searching for it. Jclemens claims the dots were an attempt to deceive.
Echigo mole's wikihounding was one of the five topics chosen by Roger Davies for consideration during the R&I review, so evidence of Echigo mole's previous mischief-making had been comprehensively documented during the review. Jclemens did not take care to keep track of the emails I had sent to arbcom about this alternative account and later apologised for that error. That error and his subsequent apology have now conveniently been forgotten. Having restored the trolling SPI report, [3] Jclemens needlessly escalated dramah in ways that appear to have been designed to intimidate me, misusing his authority and wikipedia processes. That involved fully protecting two pages of the alternative account and making an emergency report to arbcom seemingly with a view to a seekrit hearing. These emergency requests were unsurprisingly ignored by other arbitrators and the frozen evidence-gathering pages deleted by MastCell, overriding Jclemens' shenanigans.
Jclemens ignored the warnings from other administrators and has continued to label me in other venues as having operated "abusive alternative accounts". He is still doing so. His conduct in this particular case has been dishonest, bullying and evasive. His way of labelling me as a liar (as he has done above) is characteristic Clemensism. He made several errors, was corrected, and then after that advised and warned by administrators (in this case by NuclearWarfare, MastCell and Future Perfect at Sunrise). [4] He writes now as if those warnings never happened and that his actions were justified. Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the report by the blatant sock troll [5] and Jclcmens decided to follow the wrong path by restoring it. [6] As a checkuser he should have checked the account Jello carotids ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is a pity that Jclemens decided to mention this now as an illustration of how well he has acted as an administrator/checkuser/arbitrator. I was not intending to comment. As far as I am concerned his "performance" back then showed serious deficiencies in all three roles. A motion was later passed by arbcom about enabling socks of the wikihounder Echigo mole. Mathsci ( talk) 07:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Matters concerning Echigo mole from May 2012
|
---|
On 18 May Khvalamde started a discussion at WP:AN to community ban Echigo mole. That ban discussion was concluded with the confirmation of a community ban at 19:37 on 27 May. Before that Jello caroids had already made edits in project space that showed back knowledge and editing style which confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that he was yet another troll sock of Echigo mole. [7] I gave a complete list of the complete set of confirmed named socks and ipsocks on 20 May, when I noticed the thread. Echigo mole had intervened twice on 23 May using the usual ip range. [8] [9] Further ipsocks of Echigo mole were reverted in that discussion by me and reverted and blocked by MastCell and Future Perfect at Sunrise. Echigo mole created the account Jello carotids as a sleeping sock in October 2010, with 10 namespace edits to autoconfirm the account. Their first edits on 26 May 2012 were related to the community ban discussion on Echigo mole. [10] [11] They trolled on an arbitrators' talk page [12] and then opened the SPI report on me at 13:27. [13] I made a checkuser request on their account at 18:11 [14] and they commented at 18:34 [15]. I reverted the edits at 18:36 on that SPI report. [16] Just before that he made his last trolling edit at 18:35. [17] He was blocked at 19:02 by Future Perfect at Sunrise. On 28 May Reaper Enternal confirmed him as a sock [18] per WP:DUCK. 2 hours later Deskana, in response to the two checkuser requests for Leon Gonsalez and Jello carotids, wrote [19] that the circumstantial evidence was enough without CU to confirm Echigo mole as sockmaster. So I made two reversions of Jello carotids trolling in 2 separate SPI reports. Behind all this was a mailicious wikihounding troll, using two sockpuppets and at least two blocked ipsocks. Jclemens reaction was to enable the blatant Echigo mole sock, presumably aware of the parallel community ban discussions on WP:AN, and escalate matters into high dramah. No other administrator or checkuser agreed with him. He received advice and warnings from several experienced administrators. From MastCell: [20] ". But if you disregard the administrative consensus here without the clear consensus of the Committee, then I will pursue it as I find your handling of this case extremely concerning;" From NuclearWarfare;. [21] [22] The request was closed as inappropriate by an experienced checkuser DeltaQuad. [23] And from Future Perfect at Sunrise. [24] There were two emails sent to arbcom that disclosed the existence and reason for creating this legitimate and fully declared alternative account. In all of this, Jclemens acted out of all proportion. Multiple administrators fortunately acted with cool heads: Reaper Eternal, Deskana, MastCell, Future Perfect at Sunrise, NuclearWarfare, DeltaQuad. Jclemens did not. Some of Jclemens most questionable edits can be seen here: [25] [26] |
The mailing list brouhaha seems to be a key issue -- I have a couple or three more years exprerience in seeing use of mailing lists <g> (try three decades) and so I can assure folks that such usage (I have only seen the one leaded email) is not alien in this world, and suspect some of those making the most noise that it was "evil" are the same ones who opposed Jclemens in the past and who opposed his "Wikipedian" remarks as well. In fact, with the leaked post text only as my guide, there is no sign that I see of being "beyond the pale" at all. What I do see is what many Americans would see as normal posting to a well-defined group indicating that he intended to defend his positions, however controversial that are to some. I, personally, find a variety of strong opinions to be of greater value to the committee than a group of malleable arbitrators susceptible to " groupthink" results. I further suggest that having a group of members all of whom agree on everything would be extraordinarily easily gameable as a group for decisions. Collect ( talk) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
In her nomination statement at PumpkinSky's recent RFA, Keilana called PumpkinSky / Rlevse "one of the most stalwart, trusted members of the community." A non-trivial segment of the community disagreed. I question Keilana's capacity to assess others' trustworthiness. Townlake ( talk) 02:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, Townlake. I believe very strongly in the concept of "assume good faith" and try to do so with other users wherever possible. I do my best to remind myself that every editor here, regardless of how well I've gotten on with them, is a fellow human who I would treat kindly if I met them in real life. I stand by my belief that PumpkinSky has contributed high-quality edits and would have been a benefit to the project if he had the admin tools. I understand that others disagree and that's fine - dissent and diversity of opinion is necessary in a community like ours. I would like to reiterate that I would recuse in any case that involved people I am close to, as I would not be able to be neutral and unbiased. I hope that clarifies what my approach as an arbitrator would be for you. Keilana| Parlez ici 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
While User:Joefromrandb clearly violated the No Personal Attacks rule, Ks0stm inserting himself into verbal fisticuffs on that irate user's talk page HERE was an ill-considered provocation that turned bad to worse and shows a clear lack of the type of mature judgment that we need in ArbCom members. That the escalation was followed by running to mommy at AN/I is even worse. I strongly oppose this candidacy. Carrite ( talk) 17:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked all candidates the same question on 27 November. Ks0stm is the only candidate not to have responded yet. It's been a week. IMO, anyone who cannot be bothered to reply to a simple question is unlikely to contribute much to ArbCom. It's an Oppose from me. Bazonka ( talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I've come to respect Newyorkbrad's judgment on ArbCom. The ability he has demonstrated by authoring a big percentage of actual ArbCom decisions is not to be taken lightly either. I support this candidacy. Carrite ( talk) 17:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for NuclearWarfare
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Pgallert
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for RegentsPark
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the "Civility enforcement" case, the following comment which I made on an amendment request may be of interest to readers. In a nutshell, although I felt (and still feel) that civility is paramount, and that Malleus Fatuorum's communication style has been inappropriately uncivil, I accept the evident fact that there simply is not a clear community consensus on this point. To avoid any possible future controversy over whether I harbour prejudice or bias against MF, I will say that if a subsequent amendment request or new case involving him were to come before an Arbitration Committee on which I was sitting, I would recuse myself unless I were presented with unusually compelling reasons not to do so.
Regarding the "TimidGuy ban appeal" case, the community needs to be aware that I have had somewhat of a connection with Will Beback in the past, both on- and off-wiki — primarily in connection with my two RfA bids. In the event that a ban appeal or other action involving WB were to come before an ArbCom on which I was sitting, I would recuse myself, unquestionably and without hesitation. — Rich wales 18:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that someone that interprets a simple pun as an personal attack, and therefore blocks the user at his own will, despite being involved itself, is suited for such a position. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 署名の宣言 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, I noticed that in some of the answers here you seem to answer slightly different questions to the ones asked i.e. what your general opinion is about certain things rather than how you would have acted in the admins shoes. I can't tell whether you're avoiding answering the questions directly or if you just misread them, but it may affect how I vote. Formerip ( talk) 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
T. Canens has 4,931 mainspace edits, which is 16% of his total edits. Last month he managed only six edits to an article, and just three the month before. The most edits that he has made to any article has been 47 to Liu_Yong_(Qing_Dynasty), which is still a stub. What does he spend his time on? Overwhelmingly, it appears - over 50% of edits - on various admin noticeboards. So he seems to have very little experience at all. The profile looks depressingly like Elen's, who started actively editing a few months earlier. Reading through Tim's RfA, there were a number of opposes on the basis of a limited main content edit record. One editor noted that he found it difficult to write anything at all . He subsequently made no effort whatsoever to remedy the situation. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Timotheus Canens has been an admin since 2010 and his track outstanding even after going through his track and also all the guides including a few of which do not support him they have nothing against the candidate or nothing to oppose him for he is totally non controversial . He is a clerk at sockpuppet investigations and worked in arbitration enforcement and Deletion review and is experienced and has worked extensively in admin areas and is fully qualified to be an arb. He has more mainspace edits and has created 7 articles and has done more content creation than several other candidates who were arbs in the past .Personally would not consider this to a major factor in Arb election. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Timotheus Canens
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I opposed WTT's candidacy last year out of solidarity with an editor that was perturbed with him over something or another. I've subsequently kept a very close eye on his comments on several controversial matters backstage at WP. I've found his views to be well-considered and sound and am now convinced that I misstepped with my opposition last time around. WormTT finished 9th for 8 slots and he would have been an asset to the project with a voice on the Committee with a few more votes. I feel badly about that, actually, and will be righting my wrong in 2012. I have a hunch that my previously perturbed associate will be supporting him, too, for what it's worth... Carrite ( talk) 18:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Worm That Turned
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
For the way you boxed your replies, makes reading so much easier and quick. Kudos, props, and applause. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
If only Dennis had stood as well...
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
Questions for YOLO Swag
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
|
2012 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status
This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2012. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012.
Please endeavor to remain calm and respectful at all times, even when dealing with people you disagree with or candidates you do not support.
Current and potential candidates may find it useful to read an FAQ written for 2010's election by Arbitrator Risker.
Questions for Beeblebrox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Carcharoth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Coren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for David Fuchs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Elen of the Roads
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens from the questions section:
On this, we agree. The "Not a Wikipedian" statement was both asinine and illuminating. Count me as one that will be doing his best to be pounding the Jclemens candidacy into the dust... Strongest possible oppose. Carrite ( talk) 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
That they think it sensible to submit themselves for election so soon after they have massively divided the community and have taken a pounding even from people who do not generally form part of the pro-Malleus crowd just blows me away: we need pragmatic arbs, not dogmatic ones. I've been asked to re-read their statement on the affair and will do so but, really, no explanation after the event can get round the fact that there was a glaringly obvious missed opportunity during it. Like it or not, this candidate is going to succeed or fail here on the basis of their recent actions. - Sitush ( talk) 14:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
As an aside: This is one very big community. While there has been disagreement on the appropriateness of Jclemens comment, it it no way has split a community as large as this one. We have to be careful it seems to me on all counts to not misjudge the community's, as a whole, interest in one statement.( olive ( talk) 18:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC))
My concern with Jclemens isn't with his views on policy. I suspect that his general views on Wikipedia governance and mine could probably get along fairly well. For the record I also believed that the motion to temporarily ban Malleus was a regrettable but necessary step. The problem that Jclemens has is that his approach to disputes makes him an ineffective and even counterproductive advocate for his positions. Broadly speaking – and with more than a little irony – this is the same problem that Malleus faces. Both Jclemens and Malleus have demonstrated a tendency to cast disputes and disagreements in 'you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us' terms; those editors they categorize as 'against us' are fair targets for marginalization and demonization.
It's worth remembering that very shortly after Jclemens' now-infamous "not a Wikipedian" comment on the motion to temporarily ban Malleus, that motion had actually been likely to pass: holding a 7-vote majority in favor with just 2 Arbs against. Within a day, three oppose votes (all explicitly disavowing Jclemens' comment) and an alternative motion appeared. Shortly after, the motion to ban fell below the threshold to pass, and never recovered. By turning the discussion from what Malleus had done to what he believed that Malleus was, Jclemens needlessly personalized the debate. The case stopped being about whether or not Malleus' conduct warranted the proposed sanction, and started being about whether or not you were on Team Jclemens or Team Malleus. Jclemens still doesn't seem to grasp how large a role his own comments had in reframing the way the motion was considered, and ultimately in the motion's failure. Like Malleus, he puts potential allies in the awkward position of having to say, "we mostly agree with him, but we'd rather not agree with him."
I'm torn by his recently-revealed misuse of the ArbCom mailing list. I can't tell whether it was deliberate dirty pool, or just execrably poor judgement. There is no question that Jclemens stood to personally benefit from discouraging other candidates running in this year's election. In the last two elections, he has only been seated on the ArbCom by the skin of his teeth—in the 2010 election he received the fewest supporting votes and was effectively tied for the worst percentage support of any successful candidate, while in 2011 he received the lowest support by a substantial margin and made it aboard only because an additional seat opened up after the nominations period had closed. Jclemens ought to have been aware that tipping the balance in even one potential candidate's mind against running might make the difference between an election win and loss of his seat. It is quite apparent from Jclemens' response that he never expected that his 'warnings' would ever see the light of day on-wiki, presuming that the secrecy and privilege of the ArbCom mailing list would provide even greater protection from disclosure, discussion, or mention than, say, a regular email or any other off-wiki mode of communication. In other words, he expected to get a free chance to knock out some potential competitors for his seat and distort the upcoming election, without having to face any open discussion or scrutiny of his own tactics.
Now was that actually what he thought when he put hands to keyboard? The alternative is that he was venting—telling his fellow Arbs that he was pissed off and issuing a "You'll all be sorry!" rant after he helped snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If it were purely that, the timing seems odd; his messages were sent two weeks after the Malleus motion closed, when even the hottest blood ought to have had a chance to cool. Even if it were only that, it shows a gross failure of the collegiality with which we expect functionaries to conduct themselves. I have trouble crediting Jclemens with a sufficient lack of awareness, though. Is it entirely plausible that, in the process of writing multiple messages 'warning' other potential candidates about how he intended to conduct his election campaign, he had no thought for the effect it might have on his own election? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
* Jello carotids ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Why is Jclemens using his election campaign to renew his WP:BATTLEGROUND attacks on me? His short statement above is evasive and entirely misrepresents what actually happened. [1] In a prior act of misjudgement, Jclemens had wiki-befriended the DeviantArt group who were later sanctioned in the R&I review (Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin & co). Their shenanigans were pointed out by me and, prior to that, by Shell Kinney. Jclcmens seems to have assumed that, if a group of editors had been acting deceptively, as they had, the person pointing that out must have committed even worse acts of deception. That was flawed logic. As checkuser Jclemens knew that the SPI request by Jello carotids had been made by a sockpuppet of the community banned wikihounder Echigo mole. The SPI request had already been reverted by Future Perfect at Sunrise, not by me as Jclemens implies. [2] That Jello carotids was a sock was obvious per WP:DUCK. My alternative legitimate account, used for gathering diffs for the R&I review, was clearly labelled M·a·t·h·s·c·i to stop Echigo mole searching for it. Jclemens claims the dots were an attempt to deceive.
Echigo mole's wikihounding was one of the five topics chosen by Roger Davies for consideration during the R&I review, so evidence of Echigo mole's previous mischief-making had been comprehensively documented during the review. Jclemens did not take care to keep track of the emails I had sent to arbcom about this alternative account and later apologised for that error. That error and his subsequent apology have now conveniently been forgotten. Having restored the trolling SPI report, [3] Jclemens needlessly escalated dramah in ways that appear to have been designed to intimidate me, misusing his authority and wikipedia processes. That involved fully protecting two pages of the alternative account and making an emergency report to arbcom seemingly with a view to a seekrit hearing. These emergency requests were unsurprisingly ignored by other arbitrators and the frozen evidence-gathering pages deleted by MastCell, overriding Jclemens' shenanigans.
Jclemens ignored the warnings from other administrators and has continued to label me in other venues as having operated "abusive alternative accounts". He is still doing so. His conduct in this particular case has been dishonest, bullying and evasive. His way of labelling me as a liar (as he has done above) is characteristic Clemensism. He made several errors, was corrected, and then after that advised and warned by administrators (in this case by NuclearWarfare, MastCell and Future Perfect at Sunrise). [4] He writes now as if those warnings never happened and that his actions were justified. Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the report by the blatant sock troll [5] and Jclcmens decided to follow the wrong path by restoring it. [6] As a checkuser he should have checked the account Jello carotids ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is a pity that Jclemens decided to mention this now as an illustration of how well he has acted as an administrator/checkuser/arbitrator. I was not intending to comment. As far as I am concerned his "performance" back then showed serious deficiencies in all three roles. A motion was later passed by arbcom about enabling socks of the wikihounder Echigo mole. Mathsci ( talk) 07:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Matters concerning Echigo mole from May 2012
|
---|
On 18 May Khvalamde started a discussion at WP:AN to community ban Echigo mole. That ban discussion was concluded with the confirmation of a community ban at 19:37 on 27 May. Before that Jello caroids had already made edits in project space that showed back knowledge and editing style which confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that he was yet another troll sock of Echigo mole. [7] I gave a complete list of the complete set of confirmed named socks and ipsocks on 20 May, when I noticed the thread. Echigo mole had intervened twice on 23 May using the usual ip range. [8] [9] Further ipsocks of Echigo mole were reverted in that discussion by me and reverted and blocked by MastCell and Future Perfect at Sunrise. Echigo mole created the account Jello carotids as a sleeping sock in October 2010, with 10 namespace edits to autoconfirm the account. Their first edits on 26 May 2012 were related to the community ban discussion on Echigo mole. [10] [11] They trolled on an arbitrators' talk page [12] and then opened the SPI report on me at 13:27. [13] I made a checkuser request on their account at 18:11 [14] and they commented at 18:34 [15]. I reverted the edits at 18:36 on that SPI report. [16] Just before that he made his last trolling edit at 18:35. [17] He was blocked at 19:02 by Future Perfect at Sunrise. On 28 May Reaper Enternal confirmed him as a sock [18] per WP:DUCK. 2 hours later Deskana, in response to the two checkuser requests for Leon Gonsalez and Jello carotids, wrote [19] that the circumstantial evidence was enough without CU to confirm Echigo mole as sockmaster. So I made two reversions of Jello carotids trolling in 2 separate SPI reports. Behind all this was a mailicious wikihounding troll, using two sockpuppets and at least two blocked ipsocks. Jclemens reaction was to enable the blatant Echigo mole sock, presumably aware of the parallel community ban discussions on WP:AN, and escalate matters into high dramah. No other administrator or checkuser agreed with him. He received advice and warnings from several experienced administrators. From MastCell: [20] ". But if you disregard the administrative consensus here without the clear consensus of the Committee, then I will pursue it as I find your handling of this case extremely concerning;" From NuclearWarfare;. [21] [22] The request was closed as inappropriate by an experienced checkuser DeltaQuad. [23] And from Future Perfect at Sunrise. [24] There were two emails sent to arbcom that disclosed the existence and reason for creating this legitimate and fully declared alternative account. In all of this, Jclemens acted out of all proportion. Multiple administrators fortunately acted with cool heads: Reaper Eternal, Deskana, MastCell, Future Perfect at Sunrise, NuclearWarfare, DeltaQuad. Jclemens did not. Some of Jclemens most questionable edits can be seen here: [25] [26] |
The mailing list brouhaha seems to be a key issue -- I have a couple or three more years exprerience in seeing use of mailing lists <g> (try three decades) and so I can assure folks that such usage (I have only seen the one leaded email) is not alien in this world, and suspect some of those making the most noise that it was "evil" are the same ones who opposed Jclemens in the past and who opposed his "Wikipedian" remarks as well. In fact, with the leaked post text only as my guide, there is no sign that I see of being "beyond the pale" at all. What I do see is what many Americans would see as normal posting to a well-defined group indicating that he intended to defend his positions, however controversial that are to some. I, personally, find a variety of strong opinions to be of greater value to the committee than a group of malleable arbitrators susceptible to " groupthink" results. I further suggest that having a group of members all of whom agree on everything would be extraordinarily easily gameable as a group for decisions. Collect ( talk) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
In her nomination statement at PumpkinSky's recent RFA, Keilana called PumpkinSky / Rlevse "one of the most stalwart, trusted members of the community." A non-trivial segment of the community disagreed. I question Keilana's capacity to assess others' trustworthiness. Townlake ( talk) 02:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, Townlake. I believe very strongly in the concept of "assume good faith" and try to do so with other users wherever possible. I do my best to remind myself that every editor here, regardless of how well I've gotten on with them, is a fellow human who I would treat kindly if I met them in real life. I stand by my belief that PumpkinSky has contributed high-quality edits and would have been a benefit to the project if he had the admin tools. I understand that others disagree and that's fine - dissent and diversity of opinion is necessary in a community like ours. I would like to reiterate that I would recuse in any case that involved people I am close to, as I would not be able to be neutral and unbiased. I hope that clarifies what my approach as an arbitrator would be for you. Keilana| Parlez ici 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
While User:Joefromrandb clearly violated the No Personal Attacks rule, Ks0stm inserting himself into verbal fisticuffs on that irate user's talk page HERE was an ill-considered provocation that turned bad to worse and shows a clear lack of the type of mature judgment that we need in ArbCom members. That the escalation was followed by running to mommy at AN/I is even worse. I strongly oppose this candidacy. Carrite ( talk) 17:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked all candidates the same question on 27 November. Ks0stm is the only candidate not to have responded yet. It's been a week. IMO, anyone who cannot be bothered to reply to a simple question is unlikely to contribute much to ArbCom. It's an Oppose from me. Bazonka ( talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I've come to respect Newyorkbrad's judgment on ArbCom. The ability he has demonstrated by authoring a big percentage of actual ArbCom decisions is not to be taken lightly either. I support this candidacy. Carrite ( talk) 17:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for NuclearWarfare
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Pgallert
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions for RegentsPark
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the "Civility enforcement" case, the following comment which I made on an amendment request may be of interest to readers. In a nutshell, although I felt (and still feel) that civility is paramount, and that Malleus Fatuorum's communication style has been inappropriately uncivil, I accept the evident fact that there simply is not a clear community consensus on this point. To avoid any possible future controversy over whether I harbour prejudice or bias against MF, I will say that if a subsequent amendment request or new case involving him were to come before an Arbitration Committee on which I was sitting, I would recuse myself unless I were presented with unusually compelling reasons not to do so.
Regarding the "TimidGuy ban appeal" case, the community needs to be aware that I have had somewhat of a connection with Will Beback in the past, both on- and off-wiki — primarily in connection with my two RfA bids. In the event that a ban appeal or other action involving WB were to come before an ArbCom on which I was sitting, I would recuse myself, unquestionably and without hesitation. — Rich wales 18:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that someone that interprets a simple pun as an personal attack, and therefore blocks the user at his own will, despite being involved itself, is suited for such a position. -- /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 署名の宣言 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, I noticed that in some of the answers here you seem to answer slightly different questions to the ones asked i.e. what your general opinion is about certain things rather than how you would have acted in the admins shoes. I can't tell whether you're avoiding answering the questions directly or if you just misread them, but it may affect how I vote. Formerip ( talk) 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
T. Canens has 4,931 mainspace edits, which is 16% of his total edits. Last month he managed only six edits to an article, and just three the month before. The most edits that he has made to any article has been 47 to Liu_Yong_(Qing_Dynasty), which is still a stub. What does he spend his time on? Overwhelmingly, it appears - over 50% of edits - on various admin noticeboards. So he seems to have very little experience at all. The profile looks depressingly like Elen's, who started actively editing a few months earlier. Reading through Tim's RfA, there were a number of opposes on the basis of a limited main content edit record. One editor noted that he found it difficult to write anything at all . He subsequently made no effort whatsoever to remedy the situation. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Timotheus Canens has been an admin since 2010 and his track outstanding even after going through his track and also all the guides including a few of which do not support him they have nothing against the candidate or nothing to oppose him for he is totally non controversial . He is a clerk at sockpuppet investigations and worked in arbitration enforcement and Deletion review and is experienced and has worked extensively in admin areas and is fully qualified to be an arb. He has more mainspace edits and has created 7 articles and has done more content creation than several other candidates who were arbs in the past .Personally would not consider this to a major factor in Arb election. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Timotheus Canens
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I opposed WTT's candidacy last year out of solidarity with an editor that was perturbed with him over something or another. I've subsequently kept a very close eye on his comments on several controversial matters backstage at WP. I've found his views to be well-considered and sound and am now convinced that I misstepped with my opposition last time around. WormTT finished 9th for 8 slots and he would have been an asset to the project with a voice on the Committee with a few more votes. I feel badly about that, actually, and will be righting my wrong in 2012. I have a hunch that my previously perturbed associate will be supporting him, too, for what it's worth... Carrite ( talk) 18:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Questions for Worm That Turned
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
For the way you boxed your replies, makes reading so much easier and quick. Kudos, props, and applause. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
If only Dennis had stood as well...
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC).
Questions for YOLO Swag
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
|