This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jclemens (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 25 November 2011 (→Suitability: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:27, 25 November 2011 by Jclemens (talk | contribs) (→Suitability: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Jclemens
Status on responsibility regarding copyright
There's an intriguing thread on Jclemens's talk page right now regarding his attitude towards the responsibility of individual editors, and the project as a whole, towards copyright violations (originally in the context of relatively recent de-PRODding of at least two articles later established to be largely blatant copyvios, but evolving into a general discussion of the attitude editors should take towards potential copyright violations in articles). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Suitability
Jclemens' handling of the abortion case as the principal drafter has been disappointing. Various aspects of the case were misjudged, starting with an unprecedented approach to gathering evidence, which on the one hand was not open to scrutiny and on the other hand ineffective. This resulted in the case being needlessly prolonged and did not seem to help in analysing the underlying problems that precipitated the case, admittedly not an easy one. In these circumstances it is not clear how wise it would be to choose Jclemens to continue for a further year or more as an arbitrator. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Erm...what do you mean about the gathering of evidence? Colour me confused..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- He's probably referring to me asking other editors, including at least one with whom he'd previously been in a dispute, who were not involved in the abortion case to review publicly-available talk page diffs and pick out ones they found the most egregiously uncivil, which I then reviewed and incorporated as appropriate. It was really such a successful experiment that I'd recommend that the committee employ uninvolved yet experienced editors as "investigators" to help sort out large mountains of public evidence in complex cases. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- "..at least one with whom he'd previously been in a dispute" — that's what I call a snide remark. Was Captain Occam one of the users you asked? He may or may not have been in a dispute with Mathsci, I wouldn't know about that; I believe he has been in a dispute or disputes with many editors, and his grudge against Orangemarlin is evident in this recent thread, which he started. I hope it won't drag on any longer. I'm finding the discussion between you and myself in the same thread quite disappointing (not saying that's all your fault, but you're the one standing for election). To explain briefly to readers here: it's a discussion about Orangemarlin, who has been seriously ill and is apparently now just of hospital. OM posted a little wave on his own page on 18 November, which has prompted both Captain Occam and Jclemens to insist that OM is now "back", therefore perfectly capable of entering a defense on the Abortion case soonest, therefore it's perfectly fine to treat him just like the editors who have been able to defend themselves during the case. I think there's an animus against OM leaking from the words of them both. In Jc's posts there's also, again in my opinion, a hostility towards those fellow arbs who he considers "soft on incivility"; see e. g. the rudeness to John Vandenberg here, gratuitously referring to him as a "lame duck" in a reply to (ostensibly) me. Anyway, the Wiktionary definition of "lame duck" is here, and Jc's non-apology apology for using it is here. The ostensible reply didn't engage with my own main point (that the state of having "returned to editing" after serious illness is not on a yes/no toggle; see how OM hasn't edited again since the 18?), confidently stating instead that "none of that matters". Later there are some personal remarks about the toxic effects of the way people like me talk. I would like to think this is not a typical display, and that Jc was merely unusually annoyed by my remarks, having already been stirred up by disagreement with some fellow arbs. On the other hand, if people aren't at their nicest when they're running for office, when will they be? Bishonen | talk 01:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
- You know, I'm wondering how many different venues and ways I'll have to say this: OM's return or lack thereof is entirely tangential to my position, which is that his actions speak for themselves, and his input is welcome but non-essential. All his self-declared return does is remove the excuse that other arbs have taken to duck the civility issue.... that is, unless they move the goalposts and say that his return isn't a return.
- I can't say that I blame them. I've had more hate directed at me for doing the right thing here than in any other part of my Misplaced Pages career. And no, Bish, I'm not playing things down or up just because it's election season. I'm a WYSIWYG arb: I stand up for what's best for the project, even when it's unpopular, no matter what the season. Of course, I also make statements that get misunderstood, misinterpreted, or taken out of context, just like I do the rest of the year. For example, I referenced Lame duck (politics), and yet you chose to reference wikt:lame duck without mentioning the difference between the two. Why would you partially and negatively summarize a conversation like that? Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- "..at least one with whom he'd previously been in a dispute" — that's what I call a snide remark. Was Captain Occam one of the users you asked? He may or may not have been in a dispute with Mathsci, I wouldn't know about that; I believe he has been in a dispute or disputes with many editors, and his grudge against Orangemarlin is evident in this recent thread, which he started. I hope it won't drag on any longer. I'm finding the discussion between you and myself in the same thread quite disappointing (not saying that's all your fault, but you're the one standing for election). To explain briefly to readers here: it's a discussion about Orangemarlin, who has been seriously ill and is apparently now just of hospital. OM posted a little wave on his own page on 18 November, which has prompted both Captain Occam and Jclemens to insist that OM is now "back", therefore perfectly capable of entering a defense on the Abortion case soonest, therefore it's perfectly fine to treat him just like the editors who have been able to defend themselves during the case. I think there's an animus against OM leaking from the words of them both. In Jc's posts there's also, again in my opinion, a hostility towards those fellow arbs who he considers "soft on incivility"; see e. g. the rudeness to John Vandenberg here, gratuitously referring to him as a "lame duck" in a reply to (ostensibly) me. Anyway, the Wiktionary definition of "lame duck" is here, and Jc's non-apology apology for using it is here. The ostensible reply didn't engage with my own main point (that the state of having "returned to editing" after serious illness is not on a yes/no toggle; see how OM hasn't edited again since the 18?), confidently stating instead that "none of that matters". Later there are some personal remarks about the toxic effects of the way people like me talk. I would like to think this is not a typical display, and that Jc was merely unusually annoyed by my remarks, having already been stirred up by disagreement with some fellow arbs. On the other hand, if people aren't at their nicest when they're running for office, when will they be? Bishonen | talk 01:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
- He's probably referring to me asking other editors, including at least one with whom he'd previously been in a dispute, who were not involved in the abortion case to review publicly-available talk page diffs and pick out ones they found the most egregiously uncivil, which I then reviewed and incorporated as appropriate. It was really such a successful experiment that I'd recommend that the committee employ uninvolved yet experienced editors as "investigators" to help sort out large mountains of public evidence in complex cases. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)