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: 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

• Jclemens (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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.

{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]

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

1. Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback
2. Wikipedia:Admin#Administrator conduct
3. WP:INVOLVED
4. WP:AGF
5. WP:STALK
6. WP:LAWYER
7. WP:COWBOY
8. WP:RELIABLE

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

(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.)

1. 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].
2. 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]
3. Several other admins and editors asked him to revert the rollbacks on his talk page, to no avail. [27][28][29][30][31]

(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 who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

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

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

1. 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]
2. 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]

3. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Anma says it quite well. Badger Drink (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

{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.}

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]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]

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]

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.

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Collect (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Milowent (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC). I think Rodney King can be invoked here.[reply]
5. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. —S Marshall T/C 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Unomi (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mike Cline (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC) - Half a bee, philosophically, must ipso facto half not be[reply]
11. OlEnglish (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Tothwolf (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. -- Cirt (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Okip 16:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC) another excellent point by Collect, I don't always agree with Collect, but I always respect his well thought out comments.[reply]
15. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The complainant's line and style of questioning is borderline harassment at the worst, amateur law practice at its best, and either way it's WP:BATTLEGROUND[reply]
16. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of stumbled on this whole thing by accident when I was going back through to check AfD's that I participated in. I've kept up with the whole thing out of morbid curiosity and I think that things are getting way out of hand. First, one remedy at a time. There is a ANI discussion going, which hasn't stalled. Let that play out before jumping to the next level. It is sad that the involved parties could not work the issue out on thier own. Second, I have no doubt that Jclemens acted in good faith, misguided or not. There is nothing in Jclemens prior acts that indicates otherwise. I think that an important step toward a resolution is for all parties to first agree to that. Finally, I see why Snottywong is upset. I would be upset if my contributions were rolled back without being judged individually on thier merit. Again, an important step toward resolution would be for all parties to agree on this.

Perhaps the best thing for everyone is to take a step back. In a few days, after having time to reflect on things, Jclemens and Snottywong should start a civil dialogue without outside input and see if they can agree where the other might have a valid point. If they can do that, there isn't an issue to debate.

(I moved the comments under this section to the above, as I thought they belonged there. If you intended to endorse a blank summary in protest, I apologise.)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As the author. Movementarian (Talk) 06:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very well put! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wholeheartedly. May the involved parties please read this. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Taking steps back is good. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, this is what is needed in this dispute, not an AN/I and RFC posting going on at the same time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- Cirt (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Creating a userbox essentially saying you're going to blanket !vote to delete certain articles, and then !voting delete on a bunch of articles like that, is a bad idea. It's bound to be viewed as POINTy and disruptive. Snottywong, good to now have toned down the userbox, but naturally your actions will speak louder than your words for a while.
2. The bar is and should be very high for removing !votes in any discussion, even more so for removing such !votes in multiple discussions. Commenting why a !vote may be biased/disruptive is generally better practice. Jclemens appears to have learned this; let's hope we all have.
3. There is inconsistency in the "rules" for rollback for administrators, for whom it is a minor administrator tool, and for nonadministrators, for whom rollback is a privilege that is removed at the slightest whiff of misuse. The community should probably align the two, and admins should be sensitive of the fact - as they should be sensitive to the appearance and impact on others of their actions in everything they do.
4. This whole situation is overblown. Let's go back to writing an encylopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author. Martinp (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (fixed typos. Martinp (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
2. Yup. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with this. Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ditto. Unomi (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Very well stated. Arxiloxos (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Things need to be looked over again and rules need to be changed to prevent this from happening again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mike Cline (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) - Half a bee, philosophically, must ipso facto half not be.[reply]
9. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Summarizes the situation well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Especially point #4 -- OlEnglish (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Tothwolf (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Minimac (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- Cirt (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is not the issue here.
Rollback is very similar to revert. Technically and socially speaking, rollback is available to any editor in good standing. It is more convenient, and less informative, than reverting with an edit comment. As such, use of rollback may be detrimental to a collaborative editing environment. This is why our guidelines state that rollback should be used either where there's no need for explanation (e.g. reverting vandalism) or where the rollbacker provides an explanation elsewhere. Jclemens did provide an explanation[49].

Reverting was the wrong course of action
For reasons of transparency, it would have been better for Jclemens to have struck out those AfD contributions rather than reverted them, and ideally that striking out could have been accompanied by a short note explaining to readers of each AfD why that contribution had been struck.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheffieldSteel (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jclemens (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. striking with a short note would have been much better. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ready to be closed now. Jclemens has clearly indicated that they accept the view of the community that their actions were wrong and that they would not act similarly in future. Admins don't get de-opped for screwing up, they get de-oppoed for refusing to listen to corrective feedback. That doesn't seem to be the case here so "case closed"

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Unomi (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Movementarian (Talk) 05:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. —S Marshall T/C 08:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- Cirt (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parties should address all issues in the Cause of Concern before closing this case. Jclemens has adequately answered for the WP:ROLLBACK issues, but has not yet addressed the WP:AGF issues raised by (1)multiple editors here and on this RfC's talk page, and more importantly (2) in the Cause of Concern on this page. It isn't fair to close the complaint until the entire complaint is dealt with. The rollback issues actually stemmed from the underlying good faith problem.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. SnottyWong talk 13:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I see no reason to close. Verbal chat 17:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

2) It is clear to me that:

1. Snottywong probably blanket target voted "delete" on ARS-tagged articles. His defence to this, his vote of "keep" on Upstate New York, does not sway me away from my opinion. Withdrawn as it has been rightfully pointed out that it has little bearing on reconciling this RfC. Movementarian (Talk) 08:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. JClemens inappropriately used the rollback feature to remove Snottywong's opinions in the debates.

Snottywong has gotten an acceptable resolution to his problem. JClemens admitted that he should not have rolled back the votes, declared that he would handle it differently if he mastered time travel, and has learned from his mistake. The attention drawn by this situation will put JClemens actions under closer scrutiny by his peers for some time, which ensures that future mistakes of the same nature will be spotted and called out. Repeated acts should be looked at more stringently, but you don't sanction someone for something that has not yet happened, which is what proposal #1 will do in my opinion.

In a nutshell, Snottywong got an appropriate outcome and should be happy with that. JClemens learned a lesson and should take it to heart. Any further discussion or the imposition of sanctions (self imposed or not) does not do the project any good. Both parties should take this energy and put it towards editing and making the project better a few bits at a time.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the above by signing below. Movementarian (Talk) 00:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Oppose - I'm not convinced Jclemens is capable of acting impartially as an administrator (particularly at XfD's), and he has a pattern of behavior consistent with becoming uncivil and wikilawyering when dealing with editors with whom he disagrees. His recent comments clearly show that he believes admins are not subject to the same rules as "regular editors". As several endosers have pointed out above, this is not an isolated incident, but rather an emerging pattern of behavior. A voluntary sanction would be the first showing of good faith from Jclemens in this whole situation, in my opinion. SnottyWong talk 00:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While not denying my own role in the issue, the amended statement is too one-sided. If it incorporated more of Martinp's outside view, I would be far more inclined to accept. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Support. As the author. Movementarian (Talk) 00:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unomi (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Enough is enough, let's just forget about this, shake hands, and live in harmony. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, largely due to use of the utterly pejorative term "blanket vote". It implies that Snottywang put no thought into his opinions, when even a casual sweep through the relevant debates shows that this is not the case. I'm not comfortable with "live and let live" in this particular case - there's absolutely no way Jclemens could possibly think a mass revert of one contributor's XfD statements was in any way kosher, especially not with Rollback. It's not like Jclemens is a stranger to AN/I, he knows full well the prevailing community consensus which limits Rollback use to wanton, inarguable vandalism. Certain members of the ARS seem fond of this "death by a thousand mosquitos" approach to "winning" what they treat, through their actions, as a "battle". In other words, keep buzzing around, lathering on the unctuous, smarmy Good Faith while making completely empty non-arguments on XfD pages, then when the carefully shaken shit soda explodes skywards, innocently shrug and suggest everyone go back to Writing Articles. It's irksome. Compare and contrast this particular desire to sweep an issue under a rug with the uproar over MZMcBride's similar over-use of the tools in furtherance of a more "Deletionist"-based agenda. Badger Drink (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think repeated WP:AGF violations by an administrator should be ignored. It is clear to me that Jclemens has learned his lesson regarding use of rollback, but not at all clear to me that he is going to assume good faith when dealing with future disputes. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sottywong did nothing wrong, while jclemens used tools against the clear rules against someone he was involved in a dispute with, in "defence" of a wikiproject he is highly involved in, with a clear failure to assume good faith. He then refused to correct his mistake when consensus was clearly against him and has continued to insist he did nothing wrong and was acting against "disruption" which no one else can see. Verbal chat 07:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the part about taking "no" and getting back to the project but strongly object to "Snottywong probably target voted "delete" on ARS-tagged articles." SW says SW looks at ARS tagged articles in order to combat an effect of ARS, which is that lots of inclusionists are notified of borderline AfDs. SW tries to balance these out to make sure AfD attendance is diverse and all views can be heard (I'm rephrasing). Please do not read into this nefarious intent, let the actions stand on their own. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, can't you just block JClemens for 48 months and walk away from the case? East of Borschov (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Illegitimi non carborundum, Mike Cline (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Essentially support, with the modification of point #1 to say "SW acted in a way which could give the appearance of...". The flip side of AGF is that we all try to think through how our actions will appear and are not surprised if they are reasonably misinterpreted. Both sides failed to do this here, but nothing is gained from debating it further. Martinp (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This looks like the best option for the goals of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) Quite frankly, he still assumed bad faith, and then took actions that nobody should ever take- completely removing votes from AFDs is completely out of order. I think if a user did that, they should be suspended. I don't see that this should be any different for Jclemens. So I'm proposing that he should be suspended for 1 day for acting bloody stupid. He was basically edit warring, based entirely on somebody else's stated beliefs, rather than their actions.

Comment by parties:

• Weak oppose - While I think everyone agrees with your statement of the facts above, and while the most truly troubling part of this whole ordeal is that Jclemens continues to appear unable to admit wrongdoing (without qualifying it in some way), I don't think a 1-day suspension will actually accomplish anything more than what the ANI and this RfC have already accomplished. The only purpose of a 1-day suspension is to show the accused that there is an overwhelming sentiment within the community that what they did was wrong on many levels. I believe that has already been accomplished. SnottyWong talk 14:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea that we should penalise or let someone off based on what we think they believe is a bad one. That's where Jclemens went wrong; the AFDs votes he deleted weren't vandalisms. You can't ever prove what somebody does or does not think. His statements are not reliable sources for that. All we know is what he did do. Verifiability over truth!- Wolfkeeper 15:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Cirt. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Just as Jclemens should treat people in a respectful manner, even if he feels they have done something wrong, so should you. He is not "bloody stupid," and your personal attack is out of line. I think you owe him an apology. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no I didn't say he was bloody stupid; his actions were bloody stupid.- Wolfkeeper 15:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actions have no intelligence. Only people have intelligence. You said he acted stupidly. Please remember WP:PILLARS which states "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree." Do you really think saying someone "acted bloody stupid" is respectful and polite? Knock it off. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, in (for example) chess something can be a stupid move, without any indication that the person playing is actually stupid, indeed chess players are normally highly intelligent. I think this is perfectly normal way of using the term and not simply a chess thing. So I completely repudiate your claim.- Wolfkeeper 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a chess player would be offended by being told "You acted stupidly," then it isn't polite, nor respectful. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, this is purely punitive. Also, WP:NPA. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The purpose of a sanction is to get someone to modify their behavior. I think that's already been accomplished by the RfC (at least in regards to rollback behavior and deleting another editor's comments...jury is still out on good faith). ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cirt and Noraft. Martinp (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As stated above, Jclemens has admitted he was in error. Sanctions against him are unnecessary. Movementarian (Talk) 18:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What the hell would a one day suspension accomplish? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as punitive and unnecessary. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5) There has been much discussion throughout this case about ARS in general, and while it is somewhat tangential to the matter at hands, I would like to address it. This proposal is an attempt to gauge support for starting an Arbcom case lobbying for the eradication of the Article Rescue Squadron, based on the rationale that it functions primarily as a form of canvassing, and that rescuing an article doesn't require an organized group of editors, nor does it require tagging articles with templates. While ARS is not directly involved in this RfC, it is central to the premise, since if ARS didn't exist this RfC wouldn't either. Please indicate below if you would support or oppose taking such steps. SnottyWong talk 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support as author. SnottyWong talk 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• I'd be more inclined to support starting an Arbcom case to examine the actions of ARS and specific editors, rather than making it a goal of dissolution. There was a time, long long long ago, when ARS was actually respectable, until it was taken over by a small cabal of editors who have turned it into the opposite of what it initially was. It is those editors, rather than the concept, that is the real issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyway, MFD is the correct venue for shutting down ARS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support either an MfD for full closure or an ArbCom case to look at behaviour of certain ARS members (jclemens included) and how the group should function (if at all). ARS is being ruined by a small number of very active and very vocal members (and claimed non-members). Verbal chat 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose this as stated, since we don't start ArbCom cases to "lobby" to "shut down" something. The chain of causality SW talks about is also more complicated here that SW suggests (conveniently leaving out his/her own behavior in particular). However, I support and applaud the initiative to move on and to frame a broader discussion about ARS if that is the issue, at a suitable venue. Martinp (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a MfD. Claritas § 17:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been tried before. The first ARS MfD was in 2007. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose this as stated per Martinp, but would support a general move to discuss the issue of tactical !voting at AfD, provided such discussion is not confined to ARS-bashing and acknowledges that there are problem users on both sides.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but I do agree with S Marshall in that there should be a discussion on the values of some of the ARS members. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm not comfortable with anything that paints a whole group of Wikipedians with a wide brush. Movementarian (Talk) 21:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. SW's rationale that ARS should be eliminated based on the rationale that it functions primarily as a form of canvassing is an extreme POV and not supported by the ARS project guidelines nor the overall performance of the project. The very idea that we would consider bashing a project whose sole aim is to improve and rescue worthy articles is completely contrary to the overall goals of the Wikimedia project.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but there does need to be some examination of the pseudo-canvassing nature of the rescue tag and the fact that there are a small hardcore of editors who follow that tag, !voting "Keep" without any relation to the actual values of such articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Arbcom dismisses far more important issues; I see nothing that can compel them to consider it. East of Borschov (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Wrong forum. This is an RFC related to an individual, not a Wikipedia general process. -- Cirt (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support for something like this, but it should be phrased more along the lines of "Why is AfD such a bloody battlefield in the first place?" When I nom an article for deletion, I usually just walk away from it and let the process continue without my influence; I rarely go back to see the outcome. If someone comes along and fixes it, super! There are any number of editors who, after nominating an article for deletion, shepherd their nomination and act to blunt the effect of any improvement on the article and in some cases hector those who try such improvement. Why is that acceptable conduct? Regardless of the alleged canvassing and/or block keep !voting by the ARS, every Wikipedian should make every effort to improve articles facing AfD, and look with genuine appreciation on those who add sources to marginal topics. I would wholeheartedly support the elimination of the ARS if I could be guaranteed to have AfD's free of harranguing by people arguing for articles' deletion. I know DGG has been working on a systemic proposal to change "deletion" to "discussion" with a less boolean output--one would hope that such a repurposing would help reduce the tension evident in the current process. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose SW's chutzpah is (as always) astounding. He starts with a deliberately inflammatory attack UB (quite contrary to clear UB policy, an odd action for such an accomplished wikilawyer), puts the assertion of this UB into effect (1 keep out of 21 articles from the ARS list, and even that has to get its little "This is one of the few articles that actually deserves to be rescued by ARS" dig in at ARS). So where does that leave us all now? Discussing the suspension of an admin and the dissolution of a group working to improve article quality. Jclemens and ARS aren't the problem here, Snottywong's overwhelming arrogance (nothing is ever his fault) is. 2000 edits over three years, and almost a third of that spent in the WP namespace? Those are the actions of someone far too fond of wikidrama and with little interest in encyclopedias. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on my chutzpah and the intriguing analysis of my edits, Andy. Much appreciated. Regarding my userbox, you claim that it is clearly in violation to the WP's policies on userboxes. If that were the case, don't you think the !votes at the MfD for the userbox would be stacked in favor of delete instead of keep? Oh right, I forgot, just because you don't like it means it should clearly be deleted. Also, I believe your claim that I am an "accomplished wikilawyer" is misguided. If you have ever actually read WP:LAWYER, I don't think you'd find any examples of wikilawyering in my behavior throughout this situation, whether it be in the MfD, AN/I, or RfC/U. It's common for people to label someone as a "wikilawyer" as a kneejerk reaction when all they are doing is taking up a position counter to yours, and doing a better job defending it than you are. That is not actually the definition of wikilawyer though. You should actually read it one of these days, and then your personal attacks might be more informed and intelligent. SnottyWong talk 00:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your userbox (at the time of these actions) was worded, "This user attempts to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them." This clearly contravenes WP:Userboxes#Content restrictions, "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.". You did indeed then proceed to vote to delete most of the ARS-listed articles. If it survives MfD (which you shouldn't yet assume either), that is only after significant criticism and re-wording. Your actions so far have been both inflammatory and divisive, far in excess of anything Jclemens might have done. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6) Jclemens has admitted fault regarding rollback. As far as I'm concerned, that's dealt with. If he's willing to:

Then all issues will have been dealt with, and we should close this RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noraft (talk • contribs) 05:55, June 13, 2010

Comment by parties:

• Support - I'm not looking for an apology. What's done is done. However, the only reason things have escalated to this point is precisely because of Jclemens' refusal to acknowledge his wrongdoing without simultaneously trying to explain it away by wikilawyering and policy shopping. Had he simply copped to the mistake early on without making excuses and justifying his actions, it would have indicated to me that he was just having a bad day and that he fundamentally understood the seriousness of his actions. The RfC became necessary to ensure that we didn't have an admin here who is incapable of seeing these actions as unambiguously unacceptable. His evasiveness (by not directly answering some of the above questions, and by not providing a response in this RfC) is also not helping the situation. I would suggest that JClemens acknowledge his error without justifying it, fully answer the remaining questions above, and then I will support closing this RfC and putting this behind us. SnottyWong talk 13:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This still pends specific details of what conduct is considered a violation of WP:CIVIL. More than just preventing me from fully evaluating this proposal, it doesn't give me specific enough feedback to modify my future conduct. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are undoubtedly aware that as per WP:CIVIL, "editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." Given that you are aware of the guideline, are you telling us that you are unable to to look at that talk page and determine which of your comments were not in keeping with that directive? You can't tell which of your comments were inconsiderate, lacked respect, were impolite, or created an unpleasant editing environment? Even with such blatant breaches as calling another user's behavior "childish"??? If this is true, that is a serious impairment for an administrator to have. How can you possibly be expected to exercise good judgment, or set an example, if you can't properly apply WP:CIVIL? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Oppose, kind of, but only on technical grounds. As far as I have seen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up was not part of the complaint we were asked to consider here by SW. If I overlooked it in SW's complaint, please point it out. You shouldn't demand and apology, which is what this feels like to me. People will be rude and uncivil, it is part of human interaction that will not go away. I would suggest that JC apologize, but that is something he should decide on his own. My other concern is that this is one sided. Was there incivility on the part of SW? Usually there is an escalation on both sides when it comes to incivility. Movementarian (Talk) 12:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Third paragraph: "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." The "(see here)" is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up.

• Would Support if apologise changed to acknowledge, and extended from that one AfD to all the disruptive edits of clemens. No point forcing an apology. Verbal chat

• Has been changed, per your request. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Beating a dead horse. More of the same. Appear to have been multiple prior proposals like this, in various other formats, above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose SnottyWong, you are dragging out this drama beyond the length it should've run. I wouldn't be suprised if this drama mongering and the like is actually keeping Jclemens from responding because of the fact that he is probably sick of you. I respect that you both have your opinions but you're constantly asking questions like a lawyer and adding new proposals that would do you justice in your eyes. Well I see nothing wrong with a few questions, constantly doing this will turn off editors to you both as well as this thread. I would suggest you just allow it to sit and check up every day to see what else is new. Otherwise, this is really just becomming a dramafest, and Wikipedia has plenty of those. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you do realize SnottyWong did not post this proposal, right? He did, in fact, try to close this RfC,[56] and was reverted[57] by the person who added the proposal, User:Noraft[58] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks Anma. I quickly read his support as his support as a nominator so I assumed that. Sorry Snotty. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm ready to support closing the RfC, I just want to make sure that everyone's questions have been asked and answered. It's clear to me that there is no consensus to take any action. SnottyWong talk 00:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Cirt. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. SW and Norath, with vocal support from Verbal, have understandably milked this for all it's worth, but it's time to admit that the milk's dried up now. Attempts to pile on even more demonstrate more chutzpah than good judgement.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the closure rules for RfC's, I hope the opposing voters realize that they're voting to keep the RfC open. RfC's are generally closed by inactivity or agreement. Have any of you a proposal that will garner agreement of the editors involved? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7) One of the fundamental principles of management is to make sure that objectives are clearly communicated. As I have asserted that the local consensus in the ANI thread and RfC differs from the guidelines as written (WP:ROLLBACK and associated pages, WP:INVOLVED), I will seek global consensus through VPP and specific RfCs highlighting the difference between what has previously been written in guidelines and the local consensus established here, with an eye towards eliminating inconsistencies between what is written and current community consensus. I welcome all participants here to such efforts, (which aren't strictly contingent upon the support or opposition below, nor are they mutually exclusive with other remedies proposed in this RfC) over the next few months. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Support As author. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Jclemens, you seem to be the only person who is confused by the guidelines. Yes, your policy shopping on the AN/I has shown there to be subtle inconsistencies between the New Admin school and WP:ROLLBACK (which I believe were already corrected by someone during the AN/I). However, somehow it was immediately crystal clear to everyone involved that your rollbacks were inappropriate and disruptive, as shown by the outpouring of comments on your talk page and at the AN/I within moments of the situation unfolding. If the guidelines are to be updated, it should be done by someone who already understands them. SnottyWong talk 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Oppose We forgive you for the WP:ROLLBACK issues, which is why nobody's really brought them up over the last 50 edits. If you come up with a proposal that gets to the WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues that have been identified, I'll be very interested in seeing it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing needs clarifying, your interpretation was always wrong. I'd rather you spent time addressing your bad faith accusations and failure to be civil. No one has supported your use of rollback. However, even if you hadn't used rollback - but removed or struck the AfD votes - we would still be here as that would still be disruptive. Verbal chat 07:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No; if you want to do penance, this method will achieve 0% satisfaction from the community, regardless of how quickly this was escalated here. In other words, a single user's lack of common sense or lapse in judgement does not mean that there is a problem with the guidelines. That position was reflected in pretty much every user's comment here; no reasonable person in Jclemens position (as an admin or editor) could reasonably come to the conclusion that rollbacking, let alone reverting, was the appropriate response in such circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that this has gone as far as it's going to go. I personally don't think that it's gone far enough, nor do I think that Jclemens' responses have been genuine or anything more than evasive maneuvering, however it seems there is a clear consensus that this is not an actionable offense; and I respect that consensus. This proposal represents the end of my comments with regard to this incident. Despite my strong words over the last few days, I do respect Jclemens' contributions to the project as an editor and an admin, and I truly hope that we don't cross paths again under similar circumstances. I encourage the community to support and keep an eye on him in case his actions go astray again in the future. I will also study the previous MfD's for WP:ARS and attempt to find a different angle from which to approach it. If I end up starting another MfD (for which there appears to be strong support), I will notify everyone who replied to proposal #5 above. If you'd like to be notified, add a comment to proposal #5 before this RfC closes.

I propose that this RfC be closed, and that we get back to more important and productive business. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this proposal.

Comment by parties:

• Support as author. SnottyWong talk 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Support I hope that Jclemens evasiveness in answering shows that he has realised he was wrong (and not just about rollback) and he is just trying to save face. If anything like this happens again, and I hope not, then we can always refer back to this. I'd also like to state that SW has been unfairly attacked by commentators here for dramamongering, despite being advised to bring this RfC rather than ANI and despite his attempts to close it early. From what I have seen he has been polite and patient throughout, and always responded to advice and concerns. Verbal chat 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As I did 2 days ago. For the record, SW was told by numerous experienced editors that this RfC was either premature (due to the ANI thread) or just plain ill advised. He continually shook off the well meant advice in order to pursue satisfaction. Unomi (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that is your opinion because you happen to oppose this RfC. You have trouble separating your personal opinion from the overall community opinion. I think it's fair to say that there has been continued support from multiple editors throughout the RfC (as well as continued opposition). I'm sure there are probably a few editors out there who believe that my proposal to close the RfC is premature. However, I believe that a consensus has formed to end this discussion, which is why I have taken the initiative to create this proposal rather than letting it drag out. Despite supporting my proposal, you have found a way to cast it in a bad light yet again. Congratulations. SnottyWong talk 17:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't possibly be that dense. Seriously, have a look at the outside views in this RfC, look at the signature counts, read the comments. Read what Off2RioRob tried to tell you on your talkpage. Consider the number of editors and admins on the ANI thread urging restraint and deliberation. This is not just my personal opinion. I am not casting the proposal in a bad light, I welcome and think it overdue, but I am not willing to indulge your delusion of this whole exercise being anything but overblown and masturbatory. If you absolutely must then I concede to you the last word. Unomi (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? I truly don't want to waste more of my life on you but I am compelled to. Read what Off2RioRob tried to tell me on my talk page? He was telling me that the notifications I was posting to involved parties regarding this RfC were red-linked because of a malformed template! Exactly what sage advice am I supposed to take away from those comments? Regarding your other comments about the opposition to this RfC, I don't disagree with you. Why do you think I've proposed to close the RfC?! SnottyWong talk 20:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Close the RfC; it's a misuse (though not necessarily abuse) of process and there's nothing to be gained for the enclycopedia or by any of the parties involved from it continuing to run. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - 04:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Never let the sun go down on your anger Mike Cline (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport - I think we've discussed this issue enough now. Claritas § 15:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my view above. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support closure, but not the conclusion. Movementarian (Talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What is past is prologue. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support closing, and not agreeing with the conclusions being made. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not a misuse of RfC, but it has accomplished its purpose. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Delisted due to motion to close.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.