This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Risker (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 16 December 2013 (→Jclemens: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: declining, now mathematically impossible, please close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Jclemens

Involved parties

• DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jclemens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Starblind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (blocked Jclemens for 24 hours)
• 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Carrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jclemens
• Starblind
• 28bytes
• Future Perfect at Sunrise
• TParis

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Extended discussion at AN/I

Statement by DavidLeighEllis

Recently, Jclemens speedily closed a controversial deletion review for Henry Earl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) using his own interpretation of policy, undeleting the relevant article, and threatening anyone who reverted his closure with sanctions for wheel warring.

Overturn. The vast majority of the AfD, closing administrator's notice, and those DRV opinions not favoring restoration rely on a tortured interpretation of 'event' that has no basis in the English language nor in Misplaced Pages policy. Furthermore, the WP:BLP arguments are invalid in the face of coverage from CNN and Newsweek, and potential arguments of WP:EVENT failure are eviscerated by continuing RS coverage from at least 2004 until this very month. No amount of editors arguing that inapplicable policies apply can alter the WP:Rough consensus that the article covers a subject dealt with in a non-trivial manner by reliable sources, and so there is no need to continue this debate: under Misplaced Pages policies, whether descriptive or proscriptive, there is no basis for the original deletion. You can call this an IAR close if you like, but reverting my undeletion, absent a clear consensus to do so, will still constitute WP:WHEEL warring. – Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

He twice reverted the blanking of the article, purporting to invoke BLP special enforcement in the process: "Undid revision 585708613 by George Ho (talk) restore article per WP:BLPBAN. Deleting or in any way hiding this article will deprive Mr. Earl of publicity, causing him direct harm." "Undid revision 585745435 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) rv edit against BLP: Please do not do that again. Reversion is not subject to 3RR." "Henry Earl is placed under deletion, redirection, or blanking prohibition, since hiding Mr. Earl's history could deprive him of charitable contributions during the holiday season. This sanction will expire in 30 days or when a clear consensus has arisen that Mr. Earl's article will be kept, whichever occurs first. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)" Extended discussion at AN/I, which included calls for a community desysopping, has not, and will not reached consensus, nor has Jclemens has offered any assurances that he will not repeat the offense. This is an extremely controversial issue involving the use of administrative privileges.

The Statement by Flatscan provides evidence of prior abuse of administrative privileges. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens did the right thing. Support declination of the case due to changed circumstances. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

Every year I run for Arbcom based on my belief that the abuse of our BLP policies to justify obviously abusive actions by admins is one of our major problems. This is a poster-child case of an admin flagrantly misbehaving and attempting to use BLP policies as a shield, even to the point of proudly proclaiming on his talk page that his understanding of BLP policies was better than everyone else's and that Arbcom would vindicate him. Please prove him wrong. Take this case and issue sufficiently strong sanctions that make any admin wary of citing BLP as a justification for his actions unless BLP actually does support his actions.—Kww(talk) 17:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I've always wondered how you misread my statements so. I believe that the special protections afforded admins under BLP are only supportable when BLP is read very narrowly, that we have a chronic problem with admins inappropriately shielding themselves with it, and that Arbcom's habit of not sanctioning admins who claim inappropriate shields exacerbates the problem. I've said that time and time again, starting with Scott MacDonald's peculiar theory that changing protection levels on articles was a BLP violation and continuing to David Gerard's recent theory that it was a BLP violation to not be the first major website to identify Manning as "Chelsea".—Kww(talk) 02:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes

My statement will largely depend on how Jclemens chooses to respond here, so I will wait to see what he has to say before commenting further. 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that I have read Jclemens' statement. I was planning to provide a chronology of the events, but it looks like MONGO has covered that in his statement below, so at this point I'm not sure there's much for me to add. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker and A Quest For Knowledge: I'm disappointed and, frankly, surprised, that you think that it's "an abuse of process" to close an AfD differently than you would, or that it's somehow a sanctionable offense to do so. I never expect everyone to agree 100% with every closure of mine, and I'm happy to change my mind if I've made a mistake, but I think that the fact that dozens of well-respected editors have endorsed my closure so far in the deletion review should tell you that there was nothing abusive about it. It might have been wrong – nobody's perfect, least of all me – and there are editors at the DR whom I respect who say that the closure was incorrect, but that's a very different thing than it being bad-faith or abusive. Seeing editors who have been around as long as you two have call a good-faith admin action abusive can only lead to more admins being afraid to touch anything controversial. 28bytes (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens

As I commented on my talk page the ANI discussion was conducted largely when I was unable to contribute due to the block. While the filer's request is correct that no assurances had been offered at the time he wrote that... none had been directly sought, either. Instead of using this weekend time to digest and respond to the ANI thread, I respond here instead:

• It is obvious that my belief that Henry Earl is sufficiently unquestionably notable to close the associated DRV early is not supported by consensus.
• It is obvious that my belief--that inasmuch as Misplaced Pages has an obligation to not cover non-notable individuals if such coverage could be harmful to them, Misplaced Pages has an obligation to cover notable individuals if such coverage could be helpful to them--is not held by consensus. It remains my belief that the attention that an appropriate Misplaced Pages article would generate for Mr. Earl, especially during the U.S. Holiday season, would be beneficial, not harmful, to him.

I stipulate that the summary of events above is correct, if incomplete. Missing is the interaction between myself and admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (FPaS) about 28 hours ago. At that time, we cross-reverted and cross-warned; after I notified him I was leaving for work, he fully protected the article in his preferred state. The relevant direction supporting that revert and warning was that at the time FPaS took his action, he did so with an insufficient consensus per WP:BLPBAN: "However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so." Throughout this whole process, I fully engaged in discussion about my actions, to the extent time allowed. After that exchange, the consensus more clearly developed, and I was blocked by User:Starblind about three hours later. I suspect he judged my response to FPaS in light of the current consensus at the time of the block, rather than the more limited input that had existed at the time I made that reply.

While I believe this case is premature, if it is accepted, I request that FPaS be added as a party, and that the case name be changed to Henry Earl or something similar. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

While it would have been interesting to see who felt the need to recuse, the signals that the committee is sending are already clear enough: not renaming the case request to focus on the dispute rather than myself, not striking extraneous evidence unrelated to this case, and SilkTork's statement are clear enough.

I will carry on my campaign for Misplaced Pages's pillars to be honored purely from an advocacy standpoint, as a content editor, which has always been my first love.... but not today. Expect my tools to be gone momentarily. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

My comment is clear and simple - desysop Jclemens, send him back to RfA and see what the community makes of It remains my belief that the attention that an appropriate Misplaced Pages article would generate for Mr. Earl, especially during the U.S. Holiday season, would be beneficial, not harmful, to him.. Nick (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

I find JClemens' own statement to be rather damning as his comment about how we apparently have an obligation to "cover notable individuals if such coverage could be helpful" is basically an admission that he closed the DRV by exercising a supervote rather than judging consensus. By itself, that is merely an error in judgment that would have been correctly overturned at ANI. There is, obviously, no requirement that we keep articles of individuals on the basis that they would benefit from it.

What troubles me is his complete misapplication of WP:BLPBAN in a bid to entrench his supervote. I can see no way to view this action as anything but bad faith abuse of process. As a result, I endorse FPaS overturn of this action as it was both abusive and - even without the formal poll at ANI - obviously unsupported. JClemens further threatening others by declaring any act overriding his abuse of policy an abuse of policy itself was hypocritical in the extreme. (I note that this hypocrisy is compounded by his complaining about FPaS "fully protect the article in his preferred state" in a case where JClemens did everything he could think of to lock the Henry Earl article into his own preferred state.)

This, frankly, is gross abuse of both JClemens' position as an administrator and the tools that come with it. It is also merely the latest event that makes it impossible to trust his judgment. Consequently, his continued role as an admin (let alone possession of other advanced tools) is no longer tenable. If he will not do the right thing himself and resign, then Arbcom needs to relieve him of his position. Resolute 19:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Secret

Lengthy placeholder here as I write my thoughts on why the committee should accept this case urgently and why the entire BLP1E policy needs to be taken to consideration here, and not just Jclemens behavior. Note: I added myself as a party as I'm actively involved in BLP related discussions (being my main platform in the elections) and very familiar with the circumstances surrounding Earl. Thanks Secret 19:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sphilbrick

On a positive note, it is encouraging to see that JClemens realizes the consensus opinion is at variance with his own on two important issues. That said, (and in support of a point already made by Resolute) even at such time as JClemens might have believed a consensus would support a novel theory about Misplaced Pages obligation to cover certain individuals, it is incomprehensible that one could find that theory in the DRV discussion. As such, it might be a suitable contribution to the voting, with the hope that others would follow in agreement, but it was not a suitable close, which should be a summarization of existing consensus, as opposed to a hoped for consensus.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

Short and sweet for now: this Administrator has lost the confidence of the community and the only way to remove tools is by ArbCom action. I'm not sure that a full case is warranted; I do think that action is. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jclemens. Thanks. Good call. Carrite (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett

This is long overdue, but if Jclemens wasn't an admin and an ex-ArbCom member then he would have been looking at a ban, not a desysoping. Where's the honesty in that? Eric Corbett 20:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

I think that Resolute (above) summarises the situation well. Jclemens abused his position as an admin in an effort to enforce his own opinion - a simple 'supervote', accompanied with threats against anyone attempting to overturn it. That he chose to do so in relation to a contentious WP:BLP only compounds the issues. Frankly, I can see no way that the community can continue to put its trust in someone so willing to flout the norms of expected behaviour. It seems to me that immediate desysopping is the only possible course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved MONGO

The core tenet of BLP is to do no harm but how we interpret that can vary greatly. In the article in question, one could argue that since this person is notable mainly for an incredible number of arrests and a couple mentions on the news, that we do harm by having an article since about all we have is negative things to document and/or because the notability is so low that it doesn't warrant an article. If that's the case, then why do we have List of Pokémon which leads to subsection lists of individual Pokémon? Jclemens argument seems to be that that NOT having the article is a BLP violation since harm is done due to less coverage that might compromise how the subject of the bio makes his meager living, which is apparently panhandling. That's a novel approach for inclusion, and one could argue that we're not here to make sure others can profit from having articles about them, but the flip side of that is that we are aren't here to deliberately impede that either. Aside from that rambling, the manner in which the BLP policy is implemented is also somewhat vague, with some arguing that it can be invoked whenever reasonable beliefs of harm are valid, while others might argue that invoking BLP eliminates objective discussion. With that said, the issue at hand is how the deletion process was followed.

• The article was listed for deletion on December 3, 2013 by Lukeno94
• Closed as delete on December 10, 2013 by 28bytes .
• Jclemens did not participate in the deletion discussion .
• The article was sent to deletion review on December 10, 2013 by Beerest 2
• Closed as overturned on December 11, 2013 by Jclemens . **The DRV process states that deletion reviews should run "at least seven days"
• 5 hours later, 28bytes reopened the DRV .
• Jclemens restored the article citing BLPBAN among other issues
• Jclemens later commented at the DRV
• Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the article text
• Followed by Jclemens restoration of that text and
• 10 minutes later the final text removal by Lukeno94
• Subsequent page protection by Future Perfect at Sunrise .
• At Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, Jclemens logged his restoration of the article text, "Henry Earl is placed under deletion, redirection, or blanking prohibition, since hiding Mr. Earl's history could deprive him of charitable contributions during the holiday season."
• This was struck by Future Perfect at Sunrise
• Jclemens then issued a warning to Future Perfect at Sunrise
• Which was removed at Editing restrictions by Bishonen .

Based on comments Jclemens left at Future Perfect at Sunshine's talk , I believe that he was trying to explain his reasoning adequately and objectively. My suggestion at AN/I was that everybody just chill out, and that is what I am asking the committee to do now. Jclemens seems above to be acknowledging that he didn't get this absolutely right, but I think his heart was in the right place in trying to achieve do no harm.--MONGO 20:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Leaky Caldron

This case needs to examine Administrator actions. The walls of text about WP:BLP and the article specifics are, frankly, not the salient factors here. Arbcom doesn't get involved in content disputes, right? Also, AFAIK we don't require subject matter experts as involved parties. Not sure why an apparently uninvolved Admin (Secret) finds it necessary to insert themselves as an "involved party" with "tons to say on the matter". There is already enough drama, he should join the plebs down here and contribute in the usual way. Clerks please note. Leaky Caldron 20:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Drmies

Of all the above editors Resolute says it best, I think, and I have little to add. This conduct is so unbecoming that ArbCom should take this case and consider desysopping. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC) @Beeblebrox: the problem here is that the particular BLP claim isn't really "outside of the mainstream"--it's in a desert with no stream within a thousand miles. Plus, I have seen no recognition on their part that this is worthy of controversy. I am in that group of editors who think that admins should be given leeway, especially in BLP cases (and I've stuck my neck out in such cases more than once), but this is something else. Then, threatening any reverters with wheelwarring charges has a chilling effect and is an unacceptable kind of powerplay. Besides, there's the really strange BAN, which is so out there that it begs the question of basic understanding--and in the case of an admin, that's not a good thing. Sorry to have to disagree with you, Beeblebrox, and I'm sorry that I'm part of what may well seem like a lynch mob to Jclemens's defenders: I wish I could be in their camp, but there is nothing in Jclemens's statement that proves they realize what their actions really amounted to, and how they are perceived among admins (for the most part, as pretty much incomprehensible) and editors (as a terrible example). Drmies (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Lukeno94

A desysopping seems to be in order. Jclemens has overwhelmingly failed to address the issues with his actions; given this, and a long history of doing such things, I think it's safe to say that Jclemens does not have my confidence, or much of the community's. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment Littleolive oil

I believe, this is about retaliation, seeking vindication for a past action, and a general community wide trend to lay blame for Misplaced Pages 's ills at the doors of admin and arbs There are admin actions that should earn a desysop, but this isn't one of them. There are ways of dealing with disagreements in editing that are not destructive as this is but are rather constructive and push the community forward. I hope the arbs will move in that direction. And I'd agree with Jehochman. for arbitration to take this case I'd expect to see a pattern of misuse of tools, rather then discussion of content or judging the admin on this one situation. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC))

Comment from Scott Martin

Note: In the interests of full disclosure, I voted "delete" on the Henry Earl AfD and "endorse" on the DR.

Jclemens' actions during the events referred to are perplexing and troubling. I believe they warrant an examination by ArbCom as to whether they are part of a larger pattern of misuse of tools or policy, such as his extremely unusual invocation of BLPBAN as an apparent tool to win a content discussion. I have no personal knowledge of whether such a pattern exists; I'm not sure that I've ever interacted with Jclemens. At the very least, it appears to me that an assessment of Jclemens' approach to BLP issues is necessitated. If the events in question are at all representative of it, then I would urge ArbCom to take the minimum measure of restricting Jclemens from any use of tools on BLPs. — Scott • talk 21:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Beeblebrox

I don't know if it is just the time of year or if the RFAR I opened somehow prompted users being more willing to bring cases of tool misuse before the committee, but it is very clear that J misused his admin status in this incident. It is also clear that he holds some ideas about BLP that are pretty far outside the mainstream, but he seems to have admitted as much in his statement. The concern as I see it would be in determining if this is an isolated incident that we should not expect to see repeated or if J has shown a pattern of using his admin status and tools in an inappropriate manner. Several other commenters have intimated as much but the only diffs I see relate to this single incident. The onus is on those making such accusations to verify their claims with evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am not so sure we are as far apart as all that, I certainly find J's actions here to be not only unjustified but unjustifiable. My only concern is that so many are hinting at a long-term issue which would make this a suitable matter for arbitration but I am not seeing any evidence of that. I'm not saying it's not there and I don't know that I've interacted with him enough to know one way or the other, but this one incident taken in isolation, bizarre though it is, does not seem like enough in and of itself to warrant a desysop. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from BOZ

Can someone please explain to me why an AN/I thread should be considered a prior attempt at dispute resolution? It's been my experience that – especially if the request does not directly result in admin action – AN/I does more to escalate a dispute than resolve it. Also, this may answer something I have been wondering about for some time, regarding former Arbs as the subject of an ArbCom case; how many sitting Arbs would need to recuse themselves from accepting a case because they like or don't like their former colleague, or just have worked with him too closely to be impartial?

From interacting with Jclemens, I feel that he acts with the best of intentions to retain the maximum amount of beneficial information on Misplaced Pages. Hopefully, if accepted, an ArbCom case here will show that he has acted in good faith, even if he is not among the most popular of Wikipedians for his views. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by SirFozzie

I've followed this situation with unease, that's turned into pure disbelief. Jclemens claims that NOT having an article on someone violates BLPBAN? That is certainly... a novel interpenetration of polices. The fact that they continues to argue that theory is, well, for lack of a better word, mind-boggling. I do not think that a case is necessary, to repeatedly undo the blanking of the page under such conditions and to threaten good-faith discussion during that time is not what an administrator should be doing. Administrators are expected to use their best judgement and discuss controversial actions fully fully before undoing other administrators action. I suggest removal of the administrator tools and some kind of admonishment for edit-warring via motion to be the best use of the Committee's resources during this busy season. SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Mendaliv

I'd be interested in seeing a clarification on whether community-based editing restrictions on the use of administrative tools is allowed under current procedure. There seemed to be some confusion as to whether a proposed editing restriction, which in my view operated to the same effect as a community desysop, was proper. See the proposal (stable revision where the proposal was marked as failed/archived). I am concerned because I see countervailing arguments as to the propriety of such a move insofar as allowing it amounts to a community desysop, but not allowing it (and requiring the alternative I proposed in that discussion) both causes needless bureaucracy and would still be objectionable as it would use a overbroad topic ban to effect a limitation on closing deletion discussions. While I admit I'm not particularly familiar with what sorts of issues arbitration may decide, and that there's clearly a mootness issue with this question, I think it would be advisable to at least clarify what the current state of policy is regarding community desysops and community imposition of editing restrictions on purely administrative actions.

As to the issue of WP:BLP and "harm" caused by deletion, I think ArbCom should clarify that the primary objective of WP:BLP is not to prevent harm to subjects, but to facilitate encyclopedia building by protecting its reputation. Preventing harm to subjects is a laudable and highly desirable outcome, but cannot trump other policy such as WP:NOT. See generally, WP:HARM. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest that, at least as far as the desysop/abuse of administrative tools issue is concerned, ArbCom deal with it summarily rather than holding a full-dress case on that issue. I don't see any substantial issues of fact in the general question of whether Jclemens' actions constitute abuse of the administrative tools. If there are remaining questions (e.g., the propriety of others' conduct) those could proceed to a full case. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: below, you suggest summary sanctions be brought against 28bytes via motion in addition to against Jclemens. I admit I haven't looked too deeply into that phase of the dispute, but my understanding from the statements here is that beyond the possibly bad AfD close, there isn't any particularly "bad" behavior on 28bytes' part in this incident. Maybe if there's a track record of bad AfD closes, or there's some other issue that might be adduced through the evidentiary phase of the case, sanctions might be merited. But just based on what has been said, I don't personally see why 28bytes should face sanctions of any kind. Error, even error that materially affects the outcome of an AfD, should not on its own be cause for arbitrator review, and definitely not via summary action. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: regarding your concern on how to handle parties, I would suggest that ArbCom might want to look into the developmental history of rules governing similar issues in courts of law (e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 20). As to this particular case, I would prefer to see ArbCom limit it to the administrative rights abuse claim, but I understand that in evaluating the defenses a party accused of misconduct might assert in response would still probably work to "drag in" other parties, at least as far as the evidentiary phase, so the main effect of severing the other parties would be to foreclose remedies being imposed on them. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 09:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In light of Jclemens' statement indicating an intention to resign from adminship, I think this case should be rejected as moot, and that a motion proceeding be used instead to clarify any lingering questions of policy, such as the propriety of community editing restrictions that are intended to have substantially the same effects as a desysop. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Alanscottwalker

No idea if Jclemans should be desysopped--his BLPBAN rationale made little sense, as explained here. For context though, it begins with 28bytes' AfD close, which I also find an abuse of process, as explained here and here. The discussion at the DR, that Jclemens tried to close, though has since been marred by Scott Martin's personal attacks , . Also, for the record, the block of Jclemens, as you will note, did not have consensus, at the ANI thread linked in the case statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@28bytes: First, an abuse of process may occur by "mistake," where you mistakenly abuse process, as you did by forwarding a delete rationale that was not supported by the text of policy, nor by consensus, nor by the sources. Such abuses of process are regularly overturned, even where mistaken. Even where not overturned, it should be clear to you by now that your rationale has no consensus. As to whether you should be sanctioned, I said nothing of that, Elonka and AQFK did, so I assume you mistakenly addressed that part to me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Elonka

It is always an unfortunate and somewhat sad situation when ArbCom is asked to deal with administrators, especially when it's administrators disagreeing in an inappropriate way with other administrators. Plus add a cherry on top when one of the administrators is a former arbitrator, and another is quite likely to become an arbitrator when the results of the voting are announced in a few days.

My own summary of the situation is as follows: The Henry Earl article was submitted for AfD, a discussion which was somewhat complicated by off-wiki canvassing. The AfD was closed as "Delete" by 28bytes (currently running for arbitrator). This decision by 28bytes was then taken to Deletion Review on 10 December. On 12 December, Jclemens (a past arbitrator) made a premature, and obviously controversial, close at 01:44, declaring that the Henry Earl article should be restored, and he undeleted it (this was mistake #1). A few hours later, at 06:35, 28bytes reverted Jclemens' DRV closure (mistake #2). At 06:47 George Ho (talk · contribs) replaced the article with a notice saying the DRV was re-opened. Jclemens then proceeded to edit war with George Ho (talk · contribs) and administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) about whether or nor the article should be restored (mistake #3). He then decided to place editing restrictions on the article at 07:58 (mistake #4). At 15:14, Jclemens took the bizarre step of officially warning FPS for violating Jclemens' hastily placed editing restrictions (mistake #5). At 15:25, Jclemens said he was done for the time being, A few hours later, at 18:18, administrator Starblind (talk · contribs) blocked Jclemens (mistake #6). Jclemens was defiant and requested unblock, Administrator TParis (talk · contribs) declined the request with what appeared to be a reasonable rationale, discussion about the block continued at ANI, and then TParis did a premature close of the unblock discussion at ANI (mistake #7).

So there's a lot of blame to go around. Jclemens shouldn't have done the premature close of the DRV, 28bytes should not have reverted Jclemens at DRV (he should have let someone else handle it), Jclemens should not have been edit-warring to keep the article restored, Starblind should not have blocked Jclemens hours after the situation had simmered down, and TParis should not have prematurely closed the ANI discussion about an unblock. It's also clear that Jclemens has been displaying a very fundamental misunderstanding of BLP and what Misplaced Pages is for, by repeatedly stating that the Henry Earl article should be restored because it will help the article subject to receive charitable donations.

As for what ArbCom should do about this, if they choose to accept, I'd suggest that Jclemens should be formally admonished, and banned from the Henry Earl article. Perhaps something stronger if there's a history of such behavior (I haven't dug into that yet). Starblind should be admonished about an inappropriate block. 28bytes should be admonished (or at least strongly reminded) about not re-opening a discussion that's involving one of his own actions, TParis should be advised similarly about prematurely closing the unblock discussion. Lastly, even if this case is not accepted, I would hope that 28bytes reflects carefully on his own actions here. If this behavior would have occurred just a few weeks ago, it surely would have been reflected in the votes for the ArbCom election, perhaps even costing him the entire election. I definitely would have changed the commentary in my own guide, and I'm sure others would have reconsidered their own opinions as well. --Elonka 22:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

Both JClemens and 28Bytes behaved poorly. While normally level-headed, 28Bytes closed the AfD citing a novel impetration of WP:BLP1E which has no basis in policy, either in word or spirit. JClemens compounded 28Bytes's mistake by improperly closing the review discussion. It takes two to tango but none of this would have happened had 28bytes acted responsibly in the AfD close. I don't think a full case is necessary or needed. Simply pass a motion to topic-ban both editors for one year from acting in an admin fashion for all deletion discussions. Problem solved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68

The Committee, because of its scope of authority, cannot issue a complete decision in this case to resolve this matter. The Committee can only address behavioral concerns, it cannot make content decisions. Misplaced Pages's Configuration Control Board, currently non-existent, which has ultimate authority over content matters, should also be involved. Until that Board is convened with elected members, this dispute should be tabled. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved TParis

I request that I be removed as a party. I'm not involved in the dispute at all. I closed an ANI discussion at 13:52 13 Dec 13, about 3 hours prior to the block expiration at 17:18, for a discussion that was 67% in favor of retaining the block. I'm not sure how Elonka could possibly classify it as a mistake but either way it doesn't make me a party to this case.--v/r - TP 00:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by John Cline

I think Elonka's summary most closely reflects my own interpretations of the events leading to this request. I as well, see mistakes made by several editors; and that each was apparently motivated by good faith intentions. I do not see anything that resembles a pattern of conduct that would require, or even benefit, by the Committee's involvement. I chose to use JClemens own prose, where he described his view of admin standards, saying: "we all make mistakes" and "we all get into disputes"; given as leverage to excuse, excusable error—which I believe all of these mistakes are! The final mistake made, which Elonka did not mention, was bringing this request before the committee; I strongly encourage it be declined—remanding its merit into capable community hands, where matters of similar magnitude are consistently resolved.—John Cline (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman

I'm slightly involved because I started the unblock discussion at ANI. Thankfully, the unblock was not done precipitously. That TParis closed the discussion early isn't too problematic in my view. As for the prior actions of administrators reverting or frustrating each other without stopping to discuss their disagreements, that was bad. But I think the relevant people know what they did wrong and are suitably admonished already. Jclemens' wackadoodle interpretation of BLP isn't a big deal. People are entitled to hold different opinions, even very strange ones, as long as they are willing to respect the consensus. The situation had calmed with the DRV going smoothly forward at the time Jclemens was blocked. That action was a mistake because it intensified the drama (and thus used up precious volunteer time). ArbCom should not use up their time in a matter that will only result in admonishments. If there are prior issues with Jclemens or any of the other parties, making this incident the final straw, then perhaps there's a use in having a case. If not, please decline. Jehochman 00:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TenOfAllTrades

The notion that WP:BLP compels Misplaced Pages to preserve an article in order to maintain the notoriety of a minor criminal for that individual's personal financial benefit, even to the point that there isn't time for a DRV, suggests a woeful lack of understanding about the purpose of the BLP policy.

Stretching WP:BLP to such a phenomenal extent solely to avoid participating in (or respecting) the outcome of a deliberative community process brings into question whether or not Jclemens' judgement and respect for the community still attain the levels expected and required for continued adminship. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Flatscan

After I created a subsection for a user RfC at AN/I, I read through User:Saddhiyama's links to two 2009 AN/Is. One contained a reference to the Rachel Corrie redirect dispute.

• Rachel Corrie (died in 2003, not a BLP, but there are considerations of decency to her surviving relatives; sourcing was also lacking)
  • January–February 2009: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#Admin opinions needed, WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1; User talk:Black Kite/Archive 20#Saint Pancakce == Rachel Corrie, User talk:Jclemens/Archive 2#Saint Pancake
  • May 2009: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive535#Rachel Corrie, WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive64#Rachel Corrie--living person?; User talk:Black Kite/Archive 22#Saint Pancake reliably sourced:, User talk:Jclemens/Archive 3#Corrie
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive561#Jclemens on Orly Taitz (August–September 2009): Topic banned User:Viriditas while WP:INVOLVED as the primary author and WP:Good article nominator
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9 (November 2009): Participated heavily at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9#Fort Hood terrorist attack, then reverted User:Black Kite's RfD close; his justification was "What makes him an involved admin is his intense dislike of me."

These examples are less severe, but they demonstrate a continued pattern:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire (June 2010): During a dispute with User:Snottywong at WP:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up, WP:rollbacked his contributions to other AfDs; "You're referring to the user-level rollback policy. I rolled back his disruptive actions as an administrator who was uninvolved with the AfD's in question. Is there an assertion there that all administrator use of the "rollback" button is restricted by WP:ROLLBACK? I've never understood that to be the expectation.; see also #Comment by Reyk
• WP:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia (April–May 2011): Advocated merging in the AfD, then unilaterally restored under a redirect after the AfD was closed as delete
  • User talk:Jclemens/Archive 7#Phyrexia, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#"Involved" status of nominator and/or AfD participants
• Talk:Ex-gay movement#OneByOne (September 2013): reverted twice, issued a warning and block threat for WP:Disruptive editing, and inferred a nonexistent sockpuppetry accusation, despite his history of making casual sockpuppet accusations: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#Jclemens and personal attacks (July 2012); WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Long running case of casting aspersions, User talk:Jclemens/Archive 13#Apology (September–October 2013)

I also have examples of general – not involving admin tools or authority – non-collegial behavior and resistance to feedback, including a few instances involving myself. While they are generally RfC-level complaints, my experience indicates that Jclemens will at most pay lip service to an unfavorable RfC outcome. If the arbitrators decide that this evidence is in scope, I would like to be added as a party. Flatscan (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Expanded November 2009 and June 2010 incidents, drafted before resignation. (diff) Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Someone not using his real name

I think several aspects of this case can be reasonably described as debatable/controversial, including whether someone who received the kind of media coverage that Henry Earl received should or shouldn't have a Misplaced Pages page.

On the other hand, the ANI discussion has made it pretty clear that the community views JClemens' interpretation of BLP in this case (mandating an article in Misplaced Pages) as utterly untenable. Unfortunately, JClemens decided to enforce his odd-man-out theory with one of the most serious of implements in administrators' arsenal—WP:BLPBAN directed at anyone disagreeing with him, including fellow administrators. Even to this date, JClemens makes no apology in that respect, nor does he promise not to repeat that line of action stemming from an interpretation of BLP he still thinks valid. So, I think an emergency desysop is the only sane response here. Besides that, the Committee may wish to consider if any of the other admins involved need to be admonished or whatever, but the core of the case seems clear-cut. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor issue: admin User:Bishonen should be formally named a party as well, because she took part in reverting JClemens' BLPBAN declaration from the official log. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

I suggest that this case is unneeded from the start. It appears Mr. Clemens does indeed recognize a broad range of views on the article deletion (fwiw I !voted "Delete" there, so no one can accuse me of any bias in any determination of consensus thereon) but I find the posse mentality evinced by some to be extraordinarily discouraging, and urge the denial of this case. Misplaced Pages does not actually benefit from this sort of attempted desysop-by-argumentation (or as some would attempt "desysop by acclamation". ArbCom has, in the past, not taken such cases, and it is, in my opinion, unwise to start now at the end of the year. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by SarekOfVulcan

I think the thing that tips this into ArbCom territory was the misapplication of BLPBAN. Everything else should be handled at a lower level, but once you start misapplying ArbCom sanctions, it's time for ArbCom to take a look. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by not-entirely-innocent-bystander Mangoe

I strongly disagree with JClemens's theories about the subject's/victim's notability, and said so in the DRV discussion. Given that the BLP policies are supposed to conservative and protective both of us and our subjects, however, it is unconscionable that WP:BLPBAN is supposed to allow an administrator to trump a discussion in order to restore this article, especially since the rationale he gave is nothing better than "I'm right and the people who wanted it deleted are wrong." Mangoe (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

There's been a lot of inappropriate behavior here, and, regardless of the outcome of the underlying dispute, it's plain that admin tools have been misused on both sides. There is a problem here that is obscured by all the hullabaloo, though, and really requires attention; it's been an intractable part of many deletion disputes. The interplay between BLP1E, general BLP policy, and Arbcom-derived authority like BLPBAN is a deteriorating morass. JClemens' use of BLPBAN to require the existence of an article is haedly more outlandish than 28bytes' determination that a decades long course of conduct with hundreds and hundreds of discrete components constituted a single event. The weirdly elastic interpretations of BLP1E that have marked deletion discussions (to say nothing of the point that BLP1E, by its own, generally does not require any particular outcome) has meant that many deletion determinations have rested on the closing admin's interpretation of a "policy" that lacks a consensus interpretation. Many times, in effect, a supervote. What JClemens did on one side of the general dispute has often been mirrored by (admittedly less extravagant) overreaching on the other side. The healthiest outcome here would be clearer limits on admin authority to enforce their own views of well-disputed policy interpretations. (Second best would be a declaration that BLP1E does not authorize admins to enforce an outcome absent a clearly expressed consensus.) The instant dispute has more to do with personalities and stubbornness than with policy. The underlying issue is one the community has been unable to resolve for a long time, often not even recognizing it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt

Having made similar commentary at the DRV, I agree with the preceding comment by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. However, the situation is not entirely symmetrical. The BLP1E argument made by several AfD voters was not strictly the basis for 28bytes' close; rather, he argued that GNG was "only an assumption" that could be overturned by a consensus of AfD voters, or apparently by himself taking over where there isn't a consensus - and that this could be based not on policy but on the ever more infamous concept of "editorial judgment". The problem with that concept is that it legitimizes personal preference, and in particular, Misplaced Pages's tendency to sweep the poor under the rug. There are times here where I feel like I'm in Heinlein's Inside Intourist, with minders telling me to move along, don't take a picture of that, why don't I go see the new stadium instead? JClemens' idea, though wrong, was indeed the symmetrical partner of the also-wrong idea that content should be deleted simply to be nice; and this is worse than that. We must not legitimize the use of AfD for any group of people looking to get rid of stuff to just throw it away because they don't like it. Wnt (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Reyk

First, let's dispense with the idea that there was anything wrong with 28bytes's close of the AfD. If there was anything of supervoting or other impropriety in it, the deletion review would not be heading for a solid endorse. Obviously community consensus backs 28bytes's reading of the AfD discussion in the light of policy.

Now for the main topic. Jclemens has abused his tools to impose his inclusionist POV, steamrolling a DRV that was doing just fine without him. He then edit warred to maintain his preferred version and abused WP:BLPBAN to try to force the DRV result that he wants, with preposterous threats against other admins, and tried to excuse this with a self-serving policy interpretation so ridiculous it's hard to tell if he actually believes it himself. Certainly nobody else does.

It's not the first time Jclemens has behaved this way. Flatscan has already linked to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Snottywong.2Fuserboxes.2FARSbackfire; back then the tool abuse was rolling back the AfD votes of someone he claimed was being disruptive on the basis of a poorly-worded userbox, and when reminded that rollback is only for vandalism the excuse was "the rollback rules don't apply to admins".

In general, I find Jclemens's behaviour to be dictatorial, arrogant, and evasive. His attitude towards people he doesn't agree with is nothing but contemptuous. I can provide examples on request; I won't list them here now because this statement is long enough already and they mostly do not involve the misuse of admin tools. But I think it's releveant because Jclemens's contempt for others, in my opinion, is the cause of his tool misuse. He believes that opposing views are so meager they can be bulldozed with impunity and protests waved away with some convenient excuse.

Comment by SmokeyJoe

(Disclosure: I have !voted "Endorse" at the DRV) Jclemens asserted an unusual and unexpected opinion of a duty to cover a topic. Does Misplaced Pages have an obligation to act in support of a social justice? Jclemens' opinion was a worthy of a Wikipedian, I commend the consideration, though in the end I think Misplaced Pages must not engage in advocacy (but cf WP:SOPA). The problem was supervoting his opinion at DRV. "reverting my undeletion, absent a clear consensus to do so, will still constitute WP:WHEEL warring" exacerbated the bad look. The use of WP:BLPBAN to support the supervote was egregious. There has been conduct unbecoming.

What should be done? I don't know whether anything so far warrants an arbcom desysop, but the confidence of the community in Jclemens as an administrator seems to be in doubt Ideally, Jclemens will voluntarily submit to reconfirmation at RfA.

What should be said? DRV is the highest court for deletion or inclusion of topics. A lack of confidence in DRV could undermine the entire project, worse than any bickering amongst the larger egos. Please don't close DRV discussions under influence of your own opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

As I suggested the community restriction and commented in the relevant discussion, I am offering my perspective. Even though I think BLP1E is being interpreted far too broadly here and believe the article should have been restored given the rather weak argument for deletion, none of that changes the misuse of the tools in this case. Had he simply invoked BLP in an editorial fashion, then this would all be unworthy of any serious action. It is his use of administrative tools, particularly the special enforcement regime for BLPs, to further his position on the article that makes it worthy of action. My belief, and I recall several Arbs expressing the same view, is that the community would be well within its bounds to restrict an admin's use of the tools and would appreciate ArbCom making a relevant finding of fact in that respect. ArbCom's input would also be good in reviewing the application of the special enforcement regime in this case. Should the case be accepted then some sort of restriction must be considered regarding Jclemens, though I am not certain this should go straight to a desysopping.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

I closed the section on the ANI thread that had proposed a community based admin-tool restriction from BLP areas as a "no consensus". I have also shared my perspective with Jclemens . I am, with most of the community, convinced that the interpretation of BLP that Jclemens offered is wrong and not at all in accord with the intention of the policy, and that the actions he took were inappropriate.

With that said, I believe that an ArbCom case is necessary if and only if the issue remains unresolved. If Jclemens continues to make early closes of DRV in the manner he did, or if he tries imposing restrictions that are out of line with policy again, we have an unresolved issue. Indeed, when the dispute was unfolding at ANI, Starblind's 24-hour block was at the very least defensible as a temporary measure to stop Jclemens from using his admin tools to enforce the "this BLP subject must have an article" interpretation. However, it is not an issue if Jclemens merely has opinions that deviate strongly from consensus, provided that he recognize that and act in accordance with consensus instead of his unique beliefs. In his statement Jclemens wrote that his belief is "is not held by consensus", hence I don't really see an unresolved dispute. Desysopping should not be used as a punishment for what happened. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes

As something which involves enforcement of a previous Arbcom decision, this had to be discussed at WP:AE. However, if discussed at WP:AE, this would probably resulted in no action because Jclemens has been already blocked. It would be helpful if Jclemens promised not participate in DRV and BLP enforcement in the future. If he does, this should be enough. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by S Marshall

I feel that Jclemens is the victim of an attack that's being co-ordinated offsite, but apparently I'm not allowed to link the evidence of this. I want to say that what I think this is really about is community de-adminship. I concur with Andrew Lenehan's observation that an AN/I discussion can lead to a site ban, but a desysopping---logically a much lesser sanction!---doesn't seem to be available. If Arbcom takes the case, then I think it should begin by deciding whether AN/I can issue desysoppings. If so, does the discussion linked above indicate a consensus to desysop? If AN/I can ban but not desysop, then Arbcom will probably have to take this on as a full case, but isn't that a bit perverse?—S Marshall T/C 20:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by NE Ent

J Clemens screwed up, got in a tussle with some other heavy wiki-hitters, and ended up being soundly chastised at ANI. Bad, bad JClemens. 'nough said. Dragging this out into a arbcom case to spill some wiki-blood really won't improve the encyclopedia.

If ya'll feel you must do something, "clarify" WP:BLPBAN with some words to the effect it doesn't actually supersede community consensus.

The claim that JClemens "caused drama," is, of course, false; no one can cause drama by themselves. Also not really relevant, drama can be a sign folks care about the encyclopedia (a good thing). NE Ent 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse. I voted in one section of the ANI discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Recuse since I discussed it with Jclemens on his talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/7/0/1>-Jclemens-2013-12-14T22:13:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Accept. If this were any other case, I'd vote to decline, saying that not all other venues have been exhausted (and, to be entirely honest, generally an ANI thread is not a "previous attempt at dispute resolution" for the purposes of a case request, in my opinion); however, I am mindful of the fact that this case is unusual, in that an administrator invoked BLPBAN and another reverted his actions without really waiting for a consensus to form and, so, ArbCom are already involved, being the ones who authorised the adoption of discretionary measures in the first place. Salvio 22:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)"> ">
• Reading through everything and considering. A formatting request in the meantime: Would editors who've posted longish statements please break them up into paragraphs to ease readability. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC) My thanks to both Elonka and MONGO for doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The outcome of this request will very likely be something rather than nothing, but there are pros and cons to accepting this as a full-fledged case, and I am thinking through alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Still pondering, but a couple more interim comments. Several of the named parties are hardly core to the dispute. We've never figured out a sensible process for sorting out who the parties to a request should be, and I urge those in question not to worry about it at the moment. I also can't help remarking the irony of Kww's statement, given that he and Jclemens have always struck me as wiki-philosophical soulmates on BLP issues before this week. More tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Accept Quite frankly, the novel application of a committee sanction, and the resulting dispute and even edit warring over logging it, place this right in that "do not pass go..." realm. Courcelles 22:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Courcelles 01:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - adding a placeholder here. Need to review several aspects of this before deciding. Should be in a position to either accept or decline the case request in around 24 hours from now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pinging Jclemens: before I and others decide whether to accept a case or not, could you please read and respond to what has been said by arbitrators and others who have commented so far. If waiting a day or two would help, that may be possible, but it would be better to focus on this and respond to what is being said (stating whether you think a case is needed or not), rather than carrying on with other activities on Misplaced Pages. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Decline as moot per AGK and Roger. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• We have a series of errors of judgment by Jclemens, escalating somewhat; however, all on the same issue, and from his statement above, he appears to accept that his actions were inappropriate. So this, while concerning, is borderline as regards desysopping. He's not harmed the encyclopedia or blocked anyone, his motives appear to be one of charitable concern for the BLP individual, and he has recognised his errors. On the other hand, he's caused some drama, and in doing so has caused other admins to make actions that may need to be closely examined. So people are unsure how best to deal with the situation, so an ArbCom case request is reasonable. Additionally, what informs this request is that Jclemens has his moments of passionate principles that can be out of step with the community. That he feels very strongly on an issue sometimes blinds him to the appropriateness of his actions. I think he is someone who is solidly behind Misplaced Pages, and would not intend to harm it, but his passion can sometimes lead him to unsettle the project. I'm not sure the community have much trust left in him to keep his passions under check. I'm not sure I do. If we accept this case I don't think it would end well for him, and the process would be quite unpleasant and time consuming for all concerned. Jclemens has the option of resigning his advanced permissions (under a cloud) and when this has blown over of asking the community if they still trust him. If he did resign I don't think there would be a need for a case. I should think that Jclemens is aware of that option, though would need some time to think through all the implications. So I would rather wait a day or two before accepting, just to see what happens. SilkTork 22:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline. SilkTork 02:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Decline. Jclemens has resigned under a cloud, rendering the case request moot as framed. AGK 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. Now moot,  Roger Davies 00:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. Risker (talk)