Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.117.145.9 (talk) at 02:14, 4 March 2012 (→‎Cherry picking of facts to make a subject look bad). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

      You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

      Shortcuts

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

      Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

      Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

      Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

      On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

      There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

      When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

      Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

      Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V May Jun Jul Aug Total
      CfD 0 1 31 0 32
      TfD 0 0 4 0 4
      MfD 0 0 5 0 5
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 89 0 89
      AfD 0 0 2 0 2

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

      (Initiated 249 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 69 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily

      Probably many of you admins have heard of me since I have been around for quite a while and have done a lot of stuff. Although my main responsibilities are a bit out of the way (WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARDS) and, generally, I don't like to spend a lot of time in lengthy discussions, I am pretty experienced at them. My two most recent WP:TFD nominations have ended with closures that were surprising to me based on my experience. In January, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_10#Template:OlivierAward_DanceAchievement was closed one opinion to delete (plus the nominator) and three opinions to keep as a consensus to delete. I spent several days seeking an explanation at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_... and the long and the short of it was that after a few days of ignoring my queries, he claimed to be happy to explain his decision and felt the proper way to explain such a decision was to delegate the responsibility of explaining it to the nominator. Eventually, the nominator and I agreed that these should be restored with minor modifications based on discussions now located in three places:

      Today, I found another odd closure decision at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24#Template:New_York_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population when a discussion with four deletes and three keeps was closed as consensus to delete. In my experience at various WP:XFD, even if you count the nominator if 3-5 out of 8 people are on one side of and issue and 3-5 out of 8 are on the other, generally, this is regarded as a no consensus. This particular decision may effect a total of 35 similar templates (most of which are listed at Category:United States mayors templates by state) in the near future. My alternatives are to pursue a WP:DRV. However, since the first step in a DRV is to talk to the discussion-closing editor, I would be back on Fastily (talk · contribs)'s page. He has already expressed a belief that the proper way to explain your decision is to ask the nominator to do so, I feel pursuing that would be fruitless.

      I am curious about the closure because there is a possibility that no consensus is no longer considered a discussion resolution. I see my options as follows:

      1. Accept the decision
      2. Pursue a WP:DRV
      3. Find a place to discuss
        1. whether no consensus is still used in TFD resolutions
        2. whether Fastily's understanding that the nominator is responsible for explaining a TFD closure for DRV purposes
        3. whether Fastily may be too aggressive in closing TFD discussions I have been involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Remember that the number of !votes on either side is irrelevant - the quality of the arguments matter. Number 57 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Indeed; the arguments for keeping the NY mayors template amounted to "It's useful" (without actually specifying how) and "You didn't nominate all these other templates at the same time". Fastily was perfectly justified in analyzing the quality of the arguments rather than just counting numbers. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I nominated the NY mayors template for deletion.) Powers T 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The whole point of templates is that they're useful. WP:USEFUL isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, but it's the only valid reason for having templates such as {{Pp-meta}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You might want to read WP:USEFUL again, Nyttend. It says that being useful can be a valid reason for keeping (whether article or not), but it has to be explained rather than simply asserted. Powers T 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Umm, navboxes are pretty much always useful for navigating from article to article within related topics, which these are. It's definitely on those advocating deletion to explain why a specific example of such a common type of template is an aberration from the common pattern. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't make a simple declaration of "it's useful" in any way a valid argument for keeping. Powers T 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you READ what you're citing? "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more", which CLEARLY encompass navboxes. Just because the exception is poorly written is no reason not to apply common-sense in interpreting it with regard to templates! Circéus (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      If you disagree with what the closer says take it to DRV. I think you are reading way too much into Fastily asking the nominator to comment. To me it looks like he was fed up of you badgering him, so asked someone else who might be able to explain without getting annoyed at you. I could be wrong of course. Also, you don't have to look very hard to find no-consensus closes by fastily (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22#Template:Closed_down). Polequant (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It is hard to disagree with what a closer says if he won't say anything and hard to take it to DRV when the first step is to talk with the closer when the closer won't say anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well DRV will in fact hear it in cases like this; and it frequently does get the occasion to hear it, because Fastily does not explain his closes at the time he makes them, and often not on his talk p. either. Considering that a reasonable number of his closes have been overturned there, I don't think his continuing this way is constructive behavior for an admin. For everyone who take s the matter to DRv, there are probably ten who are not willing to undergo the further bureaucracy. Since many of these are people who would be making their first contribution here, closing discussions in this way, let alone avoiding discussing them, is has the effect of discouraging new contributors, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to encourage them (Most of his closes are good, of course, but an editor, especially a new editor, deserves an explanation--a good explanation of why something must be deleted will often keep the editor. Some of this should be dealt with by a rule requiring meaningful rational for non-unanimous XfD closings, but changing deletion process in practice seems to require unanimous consent. In the meantime, we can strongly urge Fastily to change his work habits in this respect. Yes, he wouldn't be able to do as many closes, but there are a few hundred other good administrators. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I proposed just that a couple of years ago. It was shot down in flames by other admins circling the wagons to defend their own laziness and highhandedness: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 5#Closing rationales - optional or not?. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dare I suggest that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Fastily may be in order? If this is a long term, widespread problem then that would seem the next logical step. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • AFAIK, this is appears to be a personal vendetta of Tony's. Awhile back, he contested one of my TfD closes on my talk page. I informed him that I would userfy the templates and that I was busy in RL and would provide my reasoning shortly, but he immediately dismissed it as fallacious. Annoyed by the lack of collegiality and respect I was being shown, I asked a participant in the TfD to comment in the meantime. Somehow, Tony perceived this as an attack, and literally accused me of canvassing and conspiracy. At any rate, User:Frietjes was able to work out a compromise, and the templates were moved back to the mainspace. I had believed the matter to be resolved, and so did not feel it necessary to provide rationale, granted that the concern was moot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I will always provide rationale for my closures when they involve contentious and/or complicated matters. I do not provide rationales when the result of the discussion is, IMO, unambiguous; nonetheless, I have never had any issues with explaining my closes/correcting errors (with and without publicly stated reasons) when requested. If that approach is so wrong, my god, we'd better start RfCs on some 20 other-odd admins who follow similar procedures. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are in some twisted universe where when I note your consistent efforts to close discussions regarding templates I have created as delete, when normal closing procedure would be to either keep or no consensus close them as my personal vendetta. All I am doing is noting your apparent vendetta to close my TFDs as delete even when to do so is non-sensical. You sound like someone explaining to the police officer that the victim's face was in front of my fist as I innocently moved my arm forward repeatedly at high velocity. Then, he went on a vendetta of screaming about how I was abusing him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to say it, because I hold Fastily in high esteem, but his talk page has been on my watchlist for a couple of years, and Beeblebrox is right. This is a regular issue—whether it's files, articles, or templates, somebody seems to dispute Fastily's deletion of something every few days.

        Fastily, don't get yourself dragged into a nasty RfC—you need to slow down a little and properly explain your rationale when closing a deletion debate and when people come to your talk page disagreeing with your close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Not only deletions, keeps as well of course. I haven't asked for an explanation of his close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata, but a TfD with that many comments, and with rather divided and lengthy opinions, could do with an argued close (e.g. indicating why it isn't closed as a no consensus instead of a keep, and what the opinion, if any, was about the other elements in the nomination) instead of a simple "keep". I'm planning to start an RfC on this template anyway, so it won't make a huge difference probably, but I felt that the close of that TfD was rather disappointing, not because of the actual result, but the manner it was presented. Fram (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) @HJ Mitchell, I agree with this sentiment. Just yesterday I had an unclear deletion of an image and Fastily gave an unsatisfactory explanation of the deletion reason and the process followed. I asked for further clarification and I'm still waiting. We can't require everybody to devote time to Wikipedia, but administrators should be held to a higher standard since their actions can't be reversed by us entry-level editors. Great power, great responsibility; if Fastily is not willing to explain his actions in detail then s/he should refrain from closing controversial discussions. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot comment on any long-term trends, but in this specific case, I think it's clear Tony was being unreasonable in demanding immediate explanations, to the point of checking Fastily's contributions log to see when Fastily had been editing most recently. Can we agree, at least, that if better explanations are required, that they at least be requested in a calm and civil manner? Powers T 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did I say anything uncivil? I was using the contributions log to get an understanding of the likelihood that he was ducking me. He has yet to give any explanation why he considered three keep votes and one delete vote consensus to delete. I continue to await an explanation by anyone who might be able to expalain that one. We may never know since we worked out a compromise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The discussion on Fastily's talk page looked to me like you were badgering Fastily (due, apparently to your own admitted "impatience"). Furthermore, you jumped immediately to the conclusion that Fastily was "ducking" you rather than acknowledging that Fastily might be busy and is volunteering his/her time to this project. Powers T 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I'm noticing a trend here. But as it is, I've repeatedly seen Fastily's name come up over disputed deletions and other related matters, and it's beginning to give me a sense of deja vu. There comes a point where we have to stop saying "it's every body else" maybe there is a problem with the way this user is going about things and their process should be improved. I've found him a little quick on the trigger when a cursory examination of something might solve the problem. This comes across as a binary mindset that has gotten other editors in conflicts in the past, often over similar issues.--Crossmr (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Diffs? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • [1], [2], [3] here he seems to jump into a situation he just isn't really informed on and revert a bunch of stuff that doesn't need it, [4] while old, this is simply to show that it's an on-going and long-term issue for him, etc. I don't have time right now to paw through the AN/I archives for all the times I've seen his name come up over questionable behaviour, or deletions just my opinion based on the interactions I've had with him and the discussions I've seen come up.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In my defense, all of these are extremely old, resolved, and irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 10:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not fair, we won't get our dose of wikidrama now. Diego (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      December 2011 is "extremely" old? You have a rather interesting definition of "extremely". The concerns were not just about closing discussions. [5] This is talking about deletions, so I can't see how this makes anything moot.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There may be an issue here that goes beyond closing deletion discussions. I have no particular memory of previously interacting with Fastily, but for what it's worth, I am semi-regularly editing DRV and I remember closing (or commenting in) an uncommonly high number of review requests that concerned an clearly mistaken speedy deletion by Fastily.  Sandstein  07:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Is it appropriate to ask that Fastily explain his reasoning for the two closes that caused me to initiate this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fastily thankfully deletes a whole lot of things - templates, images, etc. So much so that he has a simple page that describes his reasonings. Typically, if you approach them, they point you there and if you want more info, simply ask for a follow-up ... usually, unless the question is already answered the first time, Fastily is more-than-willing to give some extra explanation. By sheer ratio, I would actually bet that the number of just fine deletions to questionable is better than most of us. Just like the average American has heard of more problems with Plymouth Sunfire automobiles than Jaguar XJC's, it's a matter of quantity for the most part (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, in coping with the large number of inquiries about deletion, the boilerplate responses may come off badly with good faith editors who recognise the general concern, but don't understand the specifics as to what was wrong with their article. I understand that this is a wider issue, especially with over-use of warning templates, and I don't necessarily think that Fastly should be specifically highlighted here, but it does seem to cause issues. Otherwise there is no question that Fastly does lots of great work, and the one time I raised a problem it was fixed quickly and without any hassles at all. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support the suggestion of an RfC/U on Fastily per the comments here by Beeblebrox and Sandstein above; there have been related problems raised on ANI and with his bot Fbot. In all cases administrative tasks were performed in a mechanized manner without the need to provide careful justification either at the time or later when queried. Mathsci (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was troubled by this recent (4 days ago) section at ANI. Article is deleted as G11, the editor asks if they can have a copy, Fastily's response is a link to G11 that ignores the clear request for a userfied version (and then another admin cleans up after Fastily at ANI). If Fastily has enough time to delete a hundred articles, but not enough time to adequately communicate with the users he affects, then Fastily doesn't have enough time to delete a hundred articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fairness to Fastily, he has done over 170,000 deletions, so this instance and those cited above represent a vanishingly small percentage of his actions and I suspect are in-line on a percentage-basis with all other administrators. He's just doing more work, so more people notice any mistakes. MBisanz talk 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If the proportion is no higher than others it would explain mistaken deletions; but it also explains, though does not excuse his frequent failure to give adequate reasons or engage in genuine dialog. It would seem to show that he is doing too many deletions to work accurately or keep track or deal with the people involved. Bu I'm not sure that;s true. But that the proportion is no higher remains to be shown. As I take an opposite approach than he, while still finding plenty to delete--though my count is only 8% of his-- I have generally refrained from challenging his deletions, in order to facilitate the necessity of working together. Perhaps others have done likewise. NPP and related activities can not be done accurately fast. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That is true. I would say he probably is working accurately, but doesn't have time to deal with the people involved. Otherwise, I would agree with you. MBisanz talk 17:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a huge problem since we're a community after all. We've seen similar behaviour from other long term users that ends up generating endless drama. Often eventually leading to them getting blocked, banned, etc. As DGG said, above he dismissed the links I provided to earlier AN/I discussion claiming they were all "extremely old" and yet one of them is from December. Good faith doesn't extend to time travel.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This is not related to deleted templates but it's along the same lines. It seems Fastily just speedy deleted the article Aunt Bam's Place under G8. G8 states: Examples include talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page; image pages without a corresponding image; redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles; and categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates.. Now, this was an ARTICLE, not a talk page, subpage, image page, redirect or anything of the sort. EVEN IF somehow this article qualified for speedy deletion, G8 is obviously the wrong reason. The thing is that IT DID NOT qualify for a speedy deletion. What has been going on is that an anon IP has been going around monkeying around with articles related to Tyler Perry [6], and has been repeatedly nominating this page for speedy deletion, seemingly for laughs (or who knows, anyway, "disruptively"). Now I'm not THAT familiar with Mr. Perry's ouvre, and maybe I'm missing something, but "Aunt Bam's Place" appears to be an actual play [7] (by one of the highest paid producers in Hollywood). Unless there's some widespread internet wide hoax going on, the article deserved at the very least an AfD. It's obvious that Fastily didn't bother to check details, or even glance at the subject but just saw a "speedy delete" template and then deleted it. And then made up a bs reason - or at least gave a completely wrong reason - for the deletion. Per discussion above, it's obvious that this isn't the first time this kind of thing happen. And unlike with TonyTheTiger I can't be accused of perusing a grudge here. So either Fastily is a bit out of control, or s/he simply doesn't know what the heck he's doing. Either way this is going towards sufficient reasons for removal of admin tools. Before that happens, how about a topic-ban from deletions (including closing AfDs and speedies) is tried?VolunteerMarek 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That was a fairly silly deletion; just because something is tagged G8, doesn't mean it is a G8. You have to look at it. I've restored the article and its talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I'm starting to think that the "170,000 deletions" is actually a symptom of the problem rather than an indication that everything's ok. You do that many deletions, they're gonna be sloppy. It's very much "quantity over quality" and I don't see a point of trying to up one's deletion/edit count this way if it just keeps causing work for others.VolunteerMarek 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen Fastily around doing good work, also (and only recently) a couple of things I'd have questioned. Maybe it's just perceived "pressure of work"? (I will add, as I often do, that every time I have looked at any deletion process in detail I have seen stuff being deleted that should be kept, this however is not just about deletes.) Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      I'd buy that for a dollar. Give his attempt above to misdirect/dance around the issue and these kinds of on-going deletion issues, a break might be in order. If he doesn't want to take it himself, then perhaps he should be encouraged to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fastily's commitment above not to close complicated discussions without an explanation solves only one small part of the problem. The major part of the problem is the way his referral to the page of his boilerplate - - and his refusal to discuss further affects newcomers. When they ask someone here a question, they expect an answer. There are frequent and continual complaints that Wikipedia acts mechanically, and some of the things we do at speedy are necessarily mechanical. But when someone goes to the trouble of making a personal request to explain what an admin did, it is outrageous not to be given a personal answer. If an admin is doing too many deletions or other admin actions to respond to every good faith query about them with enough specificity to show they read and understood the article in question and are willing to help the user be more successful here, they are doing too many. to then refer them to DelRev adds to the insult, as a newcomer would see it as one of the most bureaucratic and specialized of all our procedures, a place where speaking in jargon and contention about basic policies is expected and unavoidable, Admins are expected to make themselves accessible. What is needed here is a commitment by Fastily to respond to every good faith question, and not use his page of boilerplate to discourage them. Perhaps it needs an MfD, as user page contrary to policy -- not in what it says, but in the effect it has. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Frankly Fastily's tendency to act unilaterally and respond with indigence (or not at all) to the concerns of other community members reminds me a bit too much of Betacommand. If this is the path he wants to go down, I imagine an RFC/U will soon be in order. Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He's one of the hardest working admins on the project. The percentage of deletion edits inaccurately made is miraculously low. There is nothing wrong with his direction to his subpage it accurately describes the reasoning for the action and points the user to what they can do and MFD on a useful page is a waste of time. If they ask for help he generally gives itEdinburgh Wanderer 00:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not excuse, and I'm starting to get some extreme Deja vu here. There has never been a time in wikipedia's history where anyone has provided the exchange sheet where it shows how many good contributions you have to make or how hard you have to work in order to be excused for certain bad behaviour. This is a whole package thing. Making a few deletion mistakes is not a serious issue, it's how we handle it when called on it, and from what I'm seeing it doesn't seem to be good, and we've seen these kinds of problems before. Editors "working for the good of the community" who don't want to take the time to work with the actual community.--Crossmr (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been my experience as well that Fastily is short with explanations during a debate, and takes umbrage it being asked to explain himself. The kerfuffle over File:Centpacrr.jpg is an excellent example (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 3 for a flavor of the discussion). It seems Fastily often thinks users are being rude or some such. That's no excuse for not giving an explanation. If he doesn't have the time maybe he should do fewer deletions. The world isn't going to end. There's another issue open farther down this page (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#ImageRemovalBot) where his haste led a horrible mess. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That was absolutely ridiculous. I'll give another example of fastily being careless with his deletions. Last month he deleted File:Perfect_World_logo.png because it was orphaned. Of course, it still had it's FUR on it. He deleted it without checking, but the article in question had been vandalized and the infobox damaged. He easily could have taken 2 seconds to click the article in the FUR and check why it had become orphaned (new version?) and noticed that that had happened, it was the last edit when he deleted it. That kind of robotic deletion isn't what we expect from a human editor and if we're just going to delete stuff without even a cursory check (He must have had to go to the article to verify it had in fact been orphaned and that it wasn't tagged in error) why not just run a deletion bot to empty the orphaned image category daily right?--Crossmr (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am going to propose a solution. That Fastily choose between providing a rationale of a least a full sentence with every close he makes of an xfd and that he agrees to discuss every close he is asked about on his talk page, instead of referring to a list of set phrases, OR that he stop making closes. As Fram said, this has nothing to do with Deletionism--much better a closer who often disagrees with me but is willing to discuss it and change their mind if convinced, than one who usually agrees with me but won't talk when challenged. Since closing is not actually an admin action--only the deletion that follows a delete closure requires an admin--we can consider it a partial edit ban, which is indisputably within our authority. Enough is enough. This is making Wikipedia look like a stone wall to beginners and outsiders, let alone experienced editors. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would modify that, Fastily should be encouraged to edit more carefully, and when someone questions him he should engage them in open discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wow, this thread has been open for quite a long time. I notice that some are referencing the remark I made about an RFC/U. I'd like to clarify that point if I might. The accusation is that there is a long term problem, yet here we are going in circles at this noticeboard, which is not really the place for dispute resolution, and certainly not the place for a prolonged discussion of one specific admin's actions. So, a more explicit statement of what I intended to say would be "File an RFC/U or let it go, but don't expect AN to resolve this." I hope that clarifies my position. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, let's send it off to RfC where it can die and no one has to pay any attention to it at all. We're not really going in circles so much as Fastily has walked away from the discussion, which seems to be the crux of the problem.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have no faith in the system, well, there's nothing we can do for you. But it's not going to get fixed by piling on here and dragging the conversation on for weeks. No one has to pay any attention to this at all, either. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Crossmr, what would yo propose be done? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, we've already seen the issue here. Fastily has come in, made (what I believe) to be false statements above, then basically walked away from the conversation. What would sending this to RfC accomplish? If we can't get him to participate in an AN thread where several users are raising issues, what motivation does he have to further participate in an RfC which has even far less weight? At the very least discussions had here where if a consensus is reached are often seen to be somewhat binding. The next step after a failed RfC would either be some drama inducing AN(/I) threads and/or a trip to arbcom. As I said above I'm getting Deja vu. We have an established, entrenched editor who is having communication issues. We've seen it before, and we'll probably see it in the future. It's a question of how long we want to spin our wheels trying to deal with this. But if Fastily doesn't want to engage the community in discussion then perhaps we need a proposal to curb the troublesome behaviour to be enforced with escalating blocks as necessary.--Crossmr (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He replies to all posts on his talk page i thinks he's just fed up with the Witch Hunt thats been let by the few not the masses. The truth is there are very few admins working in that field when he goes on wikibreaks the undone tasks massively mount up the truth is if other admins actually helped out in that field this wouldn't be an issue. He does far more than most and yes a small percentage can be wrong just like anyone else's. This thread has been open for far to long and as said above open a RFC or leave it alone nothing is coming from this thread. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue brought above is not that he doesn't respond, it's the manner in which he responds. Some people think simply pointing to the boiler plate stuff on his page is not very helpful. The problem is in the kind of mistakes that are made, this is what causes me concern. I brought an example that very clearly shouldn't have been deleted. A page had been vandalized. Fastily deleted the image as orphaned. Since the vandalism edit was the last edit to the page before he deleted it gives me a couple scenarios. The first that Fastily deleted the image without visiting the page at all or that he visited the page and was paying so little attention that he didn't note that the very last edit was to remove that image from the infobox. Neither one of those scenarios gives me any confidence in his ability to do the job that he's doing and would make me question every single deletion he did around that time since he was obviously deleting things carelessly.--Crossmr (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, is there not some way that we could learn from our mistakes at all? There does not appear to be any way to avoid a request for comment (barring all complaining stops, but that seems improbable (that's not a value judgement, just an observation)) if there is to be any resolution here. The current format for RfCs is a bit sub-optimal, you say? Boldly refactor. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We could avoid it through common sense. If we can see that Fastily doesn't seem to want to participate in this discussion, and there is no way to force him to participate in that one, the only step forward is to take him to a discussion where either he has to participate in, or where his participation is not necessary for the community to come to a solution to deal with the issue. That's either a topic ban/restrictions discussion or a trip to arbcom. As far as refactoring RfC goes, it would be more of a scorched earth approach. RfC has too much culture associated with it. I see far too many editors who seem to be simply passing the buck by kicking something off there. What I hope we could learn from the past is that as a community we need to stop with the giant time sinks some problem users become and say "enough is enough" and deal with them definitively.--Crossmr (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Meta issue

      It is said above that "the number of !votes on either side is irrelevant - the quality of the arguments matter". While that should indeed be the case, I often see TfDs closed (not by Fastily; usually as keep) where a number of people have made keep !votes based on spurious assumptions, ignoring what is actually proposed, and generally tilting at windmills, but such !votes carry the decision by sheer weight of numbers. TfD is broken; whether there is a way to improve it is another matter. I appreciate that a limiting a factor is the available volunteer time vs. the workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Soapboxing

      I gave a bit of thought to the concept of soapboxing and the point where it becomes a distracting disruption. Usually, there is some leeway on user's own talkpage, but how far should that leeway go when it is boldly presented at the top of the page? Is a person allowed, for example to say "kill ethnic group x!" or some other clever variation? Let me know what you think, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:UP#POLEMIC discourages it in userspace, so I would guess that it would apply to user talk pages too. →Στc. 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Who should one approach when asking that content, which is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, should be removed from a talkpage? JaakobouChalk Talk 10:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You can delete it yourself, if the content is illegal, you can ask an administrator to revision delete it, or you can email Oversight to get it suppressed from view. Or you can ask at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance if it is bad manners or behaviour. If the poster is persistent then we can block them. You can email me if you do not want to draw attention. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I emailed you. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Check your email please. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      How long do speedy deletion nominated articles sit before they're deleted?

      Resolved
       – Original poster says Never Mind. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I put a speedy delete tag on a non-notable organization two days ago and the article is still sitting there with the speedy deletion tag on it. Is this normal? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It's hard to tell since you haven't provided a diff, but if you're referring to The Sherry Theater, then your CSD was converted to a PROD. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It was already proposed for deletion before, thus it is ineligible for deletion via that venue. --81.98.49.178 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right. In any case, AfD should have been the next step for an editor wishing to pursue deletion, not CSD. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, my error, I somehow read that as a speedy deletion. Never mind.  ;) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This is only my personal policy, but I have in the past declined CSDs that have sat for 24 hours or more. The thought is that, if in that amount of time, no admin feels comfortable either hitting the delete button or officially declining the CSD, then it is likely not a simple case, and not suitable for CSD. When I do this I make sure to give a decline reason expressing this, and directing the CSD nominator towards AFD where the article can get a more thorough analysis. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To answer the nominal question, most CSD deletions happen about half an hour after tagging. It depends on the CSD category, though, since some are simpler to figure out than others. There is more information at meta:Research:The Speed of Speedy Deletions if you're interested in the details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to do what TexasAndroid does also, for the same reason--unless of course I can figure it out myself quickly. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Results of PumpkinSky copyvio investigation

      Information about investigation. And discussion of block of user. No action requested, at this time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      I have been informed that of the 729 articles which ps head edited, two were found with a copied paragraph from an outside source, eight had issues affecting a single sentence, and 719 had no problems whatsoever. Further information here. Major kudos for User:Gerda Arendt and the other editors who did this. Please note that I am merely reporting the results at Gerda's request; I did no work myself on this to avoid side issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Just to be precise, Gerda seems to have written:

      2 paragraphs were left without paraphrasing

      several single sentences were paraphrased not at all or too little for the reviewer too feel comfortable

      sections were copied from other Wikipedia articles (own and one other) without marking them as such

      The actual CCI can be seen, pre-blanking, here.
      I think the conclusion "719 had no problems whatsoever" is a bit overstated, though. :) There are 10 articles with checkmarks, which means 10 articles in which the reviewer felt a copyright problem existed. That does leave 719. A number of those don't seem to be "had no problems whatsoever", though. For example, the first article in section "141 through 160", the reviewer wrote, "A bit close to the source, but a tad too short to really be concerning. Reworded anyway, just to be overly cautious". Several in sections 1 through 20 include similar comments, "A bit of close paraphrasing here and there, but not really serious IMO"; "minor copy-vio repaired before DYK". One of the articles marked X copied from another editor without attribution. It seems that there may be lesser issues with plagiarism in other articles than those marked Green tickY.
      It does seem that the bulk of his edits were constructive and without copyright or plagiarism issues, but for accuracy we need to make sure neither to minimize nor inflate the existing problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Roughly 1% - and those primarily involving a "single sentence" = "not much to see." Collect (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's true that problems are minimal, but 1% is not really an accurate figure, either. The person who ran the CCI program did not filter it to eliminate minor edits and reversions, as is typically done with CCIs. If they had, the list would have stopped at #301, as everything below that would have been excluded. It's still a small percentage, obviously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You'd have to deduct from that minimal amount, of course, Moonriddengirl, those where the source has taken the only logical way to say something (which does happen, and you do the best you can to make it a bit different anyway or direct quote), and those which no one would look twice at except in the context of a high profile copyright investigation. Probably a wash.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nor does a CCI necessarily look at other sourcing issues, which has been an issue on some of Rlevse's past editing. I looked at one article and didn't find copyvio, but did find sourcing issues (I didn't mark it). Why is this at WP:AN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      <AN-spam>

      </AN-spam>

      Alarbus (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not for any reason specific to this case, has anyone done a similar investigation into 500 random articles or something? Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Good heavens; that would be insanely time-consuming. :) I spent over an hour investigating a single article at CCI this weekend. Much better to spend that time when you know there are issues than randomly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Then how is it known that the issues with ps's text are greatly beyond the norm?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have to admit that this question confuses me tremendously. :) Why does it need to be known that issues with ps's text are greatly beyond the norm? Isn't it sufficient to say, "Oh, there's room for improvement here" and ask him to improve? If we find that somebody has an issue with failure to source information, do we need to run a comparative study to see how many others fail to source information? :) Similarly, the existence of problems in one article doesn't mean that problems are okay in another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Moonriddengirl, some (to my mind) regrettable things were said about ps in the last AN discussion. As he is presently indef blocked, the question of counseling him does not arise. As similar unfortunate things may be said in this discussion, it may be helpful to know by how far, if at all, he has exceeded the norm, in considering the question of his unblock at some point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have to admit that I have not been closely following this situation; I was friendly with him in his first account and disappointed when he withdrew. Had he remained, we could have worked together on copying & paraphrasing issues. I have some idea of what the source of the problem may be. In the present CCI I (like Sandy) found issues where our article did not line up with information in the sources used. As I mentioned to Gerda, I wonder if simply slowing down would help deal with both issues. Taking extra time to compose could work. I've seen a lot of CCIs, and I've seen far more concerning situations resolve nicely. It simply takes effort and willingness to comply. (My impression is that PS is much better than he used to be, from a copyright standpoint.)
      All that said—because I don't want what I say now to be taken to apply specifically to PS—we don't generally run normative studies when blocking people for failing to conform to policies and guidelines. It seems enough to know that they're failing to conform.
      In present case, PS's block log suggests he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and I know from some side discussions I've been involved in that there were some serious concerns that there may have been issues with some of his decisions as a bureaucrat based on those. I think that copyright concerns are only part of the situation here. Surely any review would need to be global. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you saying this in an official capacity?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I should add, Moonriddengirl, that your final paragraph might be open to misinterpretation :) Here is the blocking admin's actual statement:

      I've blocked the PumpkinSky account indefinitely after realizing it had not already been done. I'm watching PumpkinSky's user page. There seems to be some confusion: a sock template was placed on that page and removed twice despite a confirmed checkuser. If it happens again, I'm going to protect the user page. As for this thread, I'm not sure what more can be said here. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

      diff--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm afraid I'm getting confused again. :) Am I saying what in an official capacity? What official capacity? I didn't block him, as far as I can recall, under any account. :/ The block log says, "2 February 2012 Moni3 (talk | contribs | block) blocked PumpkinSky (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)" What do you mean by this quotation? How does that make my final paragraph open to misinterpretation? </confused> --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You characterized the reason why ps was blocked; I merely reproduced the actual block for the benefit of all. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by a "global review", I took that to mean that there were issues beyond en.wiki. Perhaps you just meant that other conduct by ps should be considered. But what did you mean by "some side discussions I've been involved in that there were some serious concerns that there may have been issues with some of his decisions as a bureaucrat based on those"? Are we talking about his closing RfAs in which JoJo had voted?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      How is what you wrote different from what the official block log says? And, yes, I do mean other conduct on en Wikipedia. And yes, I'm talking about the JoJo situation, where somebody was actually advocating redoing some of his work based on that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And that idea was shot down very thoroughly. OK, I think I understand your position. Thank you for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you should do a similar check to articles edited by a number of random content creators to see if the amount of concerns is statistically significant. Basically the sttistics are meaningless without a control case. I cannot say that that if you look at my last 729 articles very carefully there could not be a similar percentage of "concerns". I think we should be reluctant to create an environment where any editor whose edits aren't perfect is a problem editor. Wikipedia is not designed for perfection but for gradual improvement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ditto, ditto.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Except we're not talking about any editors, we're talking about one on his second CCI. Both of which were cleaned up without him. MLauba (Talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • When WP:SCV, WP:CP and WP:CCI are empty, maybe we can take the time for that. Unless, of course, somebody who isn't working there wants to do it, in which case, I wish them much joy. :D It would be interesting to see how widespread issues may be, but not as important to me as dealing with known issues. Gradual improvement, obviously, begins with identifying and repairing issues. Editors are not generally blocked for copyright concerns unless they won't stop creating them. I have long advocated for addressing copyright concerns calmly, with an eye towards improvement, rather than shaming and alienating good faith contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is that this not an issue if other editors who are not labelled "problem editors" have similar percentages of "problematic edits": Then Pumpkin Sky would just be a normal editor and we would be wasting energy on making him a scapegoat for a community wide issue.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with you, Maunus, but only to the extent where you say "this not an issue if other editors who are not labelled "problem editors" have similar percentages of "problematic edits." No matter how many people share a problem, it's still a problem. :) But I agree with you that we should not be making him a scapegoat. Even if Pumpkin Sky were the only editor on Wikipedia who ever did this, it wouldn't make him a bad person or a worthless contributor. I'd love to see a cultural shift on Wikipedia away from scapegoating. I think we need to be careful, though, that the solution we arrive at doesn't involve excusing or brushing away the problem. We just need to acknowledge, as a community, that close paraphrasing is a delicate art, that there is room for disagreement on what constitutes proper paraphrase, and that even when some contributors paraphrase too closely, by consensus, we should cooperate cordially on defining and implementing community standards, rather than making it a moral crusade. Beyond that, unfortunately, Pumpkin Sky isn't a normal editor by any standard, and that would probably be one of the core issues. He's extremely high profile, as a result of which this has generated a lot of heat. :/ If he were a normal editor, we'd have probably gone through the first CCI with much less fuss and bother, cleaning up the issues, and maybe he'd have helped out instead of departing and would have been happily editing away with no problems. That would have been ideal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But it would then be a systemic problem requiring a systemic solution (e.g. a "paraphrasing patrol" patrolling random articles) and not a moral problem phrased as requiring a moral solution (e.g. blocks or forced cleanup of own articles). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We have systemic solutions: WP:NPP and bot patrol of new articles, recent changes patrol. They aren't perfect, but they're probably the best we're going to get. But why is it a "moral solution" to ask somebody to help clean up an issue they create? It's a matter of expedience. Are blocks a moral solution? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC
      Blocks and forced cleanups are solutions to moral issues because they make it a question of individual responsibility (culpability) and rehabilitation instead of a matter of routine maintainance of an encyclopedia. (NPP only patrols new pages - not random old pages as far as I know - and I don't know if bots are able to detect close paraphrasing)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Clearly, we're at a bit of a divide on the issue of cleanup and morality (but maybe that's because I spend so much of my time cleaning up issues I didn't create and for which I'm in nobody's perspective culpable; it's hard for me to see "cleanup" as any kind of shaming punishment. On the other hand, I also don't typically even request CCI subjects to help with cleanup, although some of them do.) But "recent changes patrol" is supposed to keep an eye on new edits, as are reviewers at DKY, GA, etc. And, yes, bots pick up close paraphrasing all the time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      From a statistics/analysis perspective, it is inappropriate to state PS's bad edit ratio as if it has some meaning given the lack of context. From a practicality standpoint, there are more issues to be fixed than wikitime and wikieditors to do so. Wikipedia is just a website so personally I don't see it as a moral issue, just a practical one. Nobody Ent 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. I think the point here is that we had a dogpile of quite severe vitriol land upon PumpkinSky/Rlevse, and it was way out of proportion to the actual problem. I agree with Maunus and Nobody Ent that absent a "control" of 800 random articles picked for similar examination and review, we really cannot vilify PS to the degree some folks have; indeed, a style and close paraphrasing problem is not a moral crusade, it's just a style problem, usually fixed with little difficulty, and one reason why we all get to edit everyone else's work without ownership. I have to note that the CCI on Rlevse and the related Vanished account is going along at about the same percentage, only on well over 1000 articles. I think that PS/Rlevse didn't stick around because the rage and vitriol that landed on his head was too much; it seems that a witchhunt mentality took hold and the only option he was given was, essentially, "bend over and assume the position." No one should be expected to accept abject humiliation. If you put the CCI issue in proper perspective (mostly small problems, all fixed), then all you have left basically are only two other issues, 1: the usual wikidrama spats with other users with some hurt feelings all around, for which everyone should all mutually agree to back away from the horse carcass and let the past be the past. 2: The socking/meatpuppet issue which -- On a 1-10 scale of sockpuppetry, this is a 2 or a 3, so issue a wrist slap and move on: We have two accounts, PS and Rlevse, well separated in time, and some evidence that PS/Rlevse had influence over the editing of two other people (JoJo and Barking Moon). The SPI standard is not consistently applied -- I recall once filing an SPI on a different user and being told, essentially, that there would be no investigation as with about a 6-month gap between the two accounts, it wasn't a sock at all, even if it was the same person. (Said user was later blocked for other reasons). I recently filed another SPI on a "good cop/bad cop" sock and while the "bad cop" sock was promptly blocked, no action whatsoever was taken against the master sock account, not even a warning or a scolding. I cannot come to any conclusion but that personalities have gotten tangled up in this at a level that is unproductive. So in short, I think it's time for a referee to blow the whistle, order everyone off the dogpile, and if I may continue the gridiron analogy, issue a ten yard penalty and go on. PS is a good and productive contributor, but also a human being with feelings, and I think he needs to be unblocked, "sentenced" for his "crimes" to "time served," (Rlevse didn't edit for nearly a year) and issued a genuine clean start. JMO. Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Oh goodness, so much unnecessary rhetoric still. I asked earlier, "Why is this at AN", and I don't see an answer. If the point is to get Rlevse unblocked, then go ahead and ask for it already (has he asked for it?). My concerns about copyvio have always been secondary to his sourcing problems and his carrying out a grudge at FAC, and I said in the last discussion that I wouldn't be opposed to unblocking him if he 1) stayed away from DYK (which is where his problems with copyvio started and where he didn't help stem the massive problem there); 2) stayed away from FAC for a trial period; and 3) had some mentors that weren't of his own choosing (he only proposed supporters of a return who didn't acknowledge the issues) and who would indeed watch out for a recurrence of the issues and reblock if they occurred. Again, why is this here? Has Rlevse asked to be unblocked? It looks like the only thing that is happening is a replay of false claims made last time 'round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It's a matter of general interest. Nobody Ent 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sandy: Your assumption that Pumpkin Sky was "carrying out a grudge" at FAC is just that—an assumption (you do not know what his motive was); the claim that Rlsevse or Pumpkin Sky was engaged in copy vio is turning out to have little basis in fact. There is a long list of stuff that needs to be checked, but the ones that have been checked are for the most part coming up clean. There is no "massive problem" of copy vio by this user.

      General remarks: My concerns regarding JoJo have been addressed; no one questioned it at the time, and his explanation sounds reasonable. I personally don't know and don't care whether he was editing as Barking Moon or not; if he was socking, so what; he was not blocked or banned at the time. I am in favour of reinstating the user as a normal editor without any restrictions. Montanabw, you make some very valid points. --Dianna (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Your assumption that Pumpkin Sky was "carrying out a grudge" at FAC is just that—an assumption (you do not know what his motive was) - The fact of the matter is that he engaged in baseless sniping over wholly reasonable actions of mine which not a single other person in the community disagreed with. And if the best defense of his behavior you can muster is that we don't know for sure that he did it out of prior malice, that's a pretty weak defense indeed. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The "fact of the matter", Diannaa, is that he himself made a post that led to that characterization of his prior issues with Raul, which I'm not going to bother looking for now, but when it comes to "assumptions", speak feryerself, please, thankyou. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I don't think that PS was primarily/consciously carrying out a grudge at FAC – that does not defend his actions, nor imply that editors who perceived his contributions in this way are WrongTM or unreasonable (IMO). My impression is that PS/RLevse had come to a view that unelected roles on Wikipedia were not acceptable to him, and pushed the point rather much at FAC, despite (or perhaps because of) community consensus to the contrary. How he came to this view is speculation, but all of us are influenced by our interactions; similarly we might all temper our impressions with a regular note-to-self: "but hey, what do I know?" Geometry guy 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Found it. He said his issues with and beliefs about the FAC business were "based on my experience with the principals". To me, that means it was personal: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      From what I know of RLevse's writing (with apologies for making a general criticism), it is rather likely that "principals" is simply a misspelling here. But hey... Geometry guy 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, my ... that puts a whole new spin on it, doesn't it :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree with SandyGeorgia, unless there's anything that needs administrator intervention, like Rlevse/PumpkinSky asking to be unblocked again (which I'll probably support with restrictions set by the community, not by Rlevse himself), or a massive deletion of problematic material this isn't the place. Secret account 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      @ Dianna I meant if there was a reason why this thread should be continue in the first place hysterically (bleh wrong word, I meant hypothetically bleh spell check), which neither of my scenarios didn't happen. Also the first time PumpkinSky/Rlevse tried to get unblocked he offered to come back practically on his own terms, which included getting some of his biggest supporters as "mentors". That didn't help his cause, and turned some people off including myself. I'm more than willing to let Rlevse back to the project but it needs to be under consensus from the community. That's how Wikipedia always functioned. Secret account 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @ Secret: Okay, thanks for clarifying. I am pretty sure it wouldn't matter who was mentoring, as there would be many observers as well. --Dianna (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at his posts from that period I see a person with a lot of anger and a big chip on his shoulder. But this one diff Sandy presents cannot justify the belief that he was carrying out some sort of personal vendetta. I personally do not believe this to be true. @ Secret: There is no "massive deletion of problematic material" that needs to be done, and as far as I know no one has said the user would be setting his own conditions if he returns to editing. I for one said no such thing. @ Raul (and Geometry Guy), last I heard, disagreeing with you or sniping at you or pushing for elections in an annoying way are not blockable or bannable offences. If they were, I would be outa here myself ;> -- Dianna (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I like that little glimpse of self-awareness :) :), but there's a big difference between you and Rlevse sniping at FAC or Raul, which is called RTV and attempts to evade scrutiny, and shall we mention that as an arb dealing with a former arb, there may well be private issues that only Raul and Rlevse know about. Anyway, re my diff above, G guy's feedback puts it in a whole new light, which I accept as a real possibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I also saw the PumpkinSky account as employing a grudge against FAC and asked him point blank at one time to explain why he was going after Raul with such force. In fact, I was sure based on the quality of his communications I saw across multiple pages, that PumpkinSky was no older than 15. I leaned toward 12. Because of the skepticism here, are we going to have to collect diffs to prove that Rlevse was disruptive and exacerbated a tedious, overlong, and melodramatic discussion at FAC for no reasonable purpose? --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This whole idea of "scrutiny" needs to come under scrutiny. Sometimes attempts to avoid scrutiny are actually attempts to avoid being unfairly accused of things that the person did not actually do, or a genuine attempt at a clean start. Some people sock because they get tired of the same old crowd of editors following them around watching their every move and reporting the slightest problem for a big cluster-fuck at ANI (sorry, I am pretty sure we are no longer allowed to swear, but I can't think of any other way to say this).

      Vendetta: it is not at all a proven fact that vendetta was anyone's motive for calling for elections; it is speculation on the part of people on one side of the FA elections debate that any of us had vengeance as a motive. If you repeat a meme like this enough times there will probably be editors out there that assume it is a proven fact that Pumpkin Sky (or me, or TCO, or any of the others) was motivated by vengeance. People actually do not know what motivates others, and it's a bad idea to speculate on what others are thinking. You don't know.

      Moni3, he was angry and acting immaturely, for sure. But being twelve or acting twelve is not blockable or bannable. I am sure you found the election debate tedious and pointless but just because the outcome was for the retention of the status quo does not mean there was no point to it. The whole point was to initiate some changes at FA, and there have already been some big changes. Closer attention is being paid to sourcing, for example. But that's a side issue for another day. -- Dianna (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Acting 12 for a 12-year-old is fine by me. Acting 12 for a fully functional adult and an ex-arb is not. Neither is being disruptive and deceptive. I never said the discussion was pointless. I think you and others mischaracterize and misunderstand what I think FAC should be. Part of the problem in being unable to understand my side or yours in a calm discussion was the poor quality of communication blanketing FAC, which Rlevse was directly responsible for, if not in totality. It could have been a much different process and much more could have been accomplished--perhaps outcomes that you favor and I see sense in--had the level of communication been productive and reasonable. Much of it was not. Wasted time, wasted opportunity. --Moni3 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No. We have WP:CLEANSTART and it is respected. But if one chooses to start anew one has to stay away from old disputes, anything else is disruptive for a collaborative community. SCRUTINY is important. Amalthea 23:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @ Amalthea, correct. @ Diannaa: cluster-fuck at ANI (sorry, I am pretty sure we are no longer allowed to swear, but I can't think of any other way to say this). Try Charlie Foxtrot. Closer attention is being paid to sourcing, for example. Unsure what you're talking about, since the "closer attention being paid to sourcing" came about earlier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      SNAFU has the advantage of plausible denialability -- the f stands for "fouled," right? Nobody Ent —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

      In my view, a thread like this should be viewed as an opportunity to reach mutual understanding: not agreement, perhaps, but at least an understanding of what the disagreements are actually about. This thread will have no consequences beyond that anyway: it will be archived automatically in a few days, recalled by those who read it, and possibly diffed for a few choice comments. With that proviso, I have a few remarks.

      • This page is not ANI, so no immediate administrator intervention is being requested; however, the topic is of interest to administrators, not least because there is a block in place that at some point in the future may require reconsideration. There are plenty of other reasons for discussing this case, including wider ramifications.
      • There are many reasonable editors here, with reasonable positions. Reasonable opposing positions are not addressed by referring to extreme aspects of opposing positions (for example, no reasonable position involves "vitriol": such concerns should be taken to the user talk page of the editor in question).
      • The idea that PS/RLevse was blocked for close paraphrasing is a gross simplification. His choice to vanish short-circuited such a discussion, which, with hindsight, was regrettable. The socking and influence over other accounts are all contributing factors. How much weight we attach to each element is a matter for discussion, as are the consequences.
      • Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not.
      • All editors should be encouraged to follow best practice (e.g. with regard to close paraphrasing), not merely typical practice.
      • The idea to study typical practice with regard to paraphrasing is flawed, assuming an objectivity that such a study would almost certainly be unable to achieve. I have made related comments on Moonriddengirl's talk page.

      That's all. I thank all editors in advance for reading and thinking about the many issues this discussion raises. Geometry guy 22:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Please help my confusion

      Throughout this process, I've been quite confused: why has PumpkinSky been blocked because it's a sockpuppet? Rlevse was never blocked, except for "Vanished users do not need to edit" after he retired and his username was moved to Vanished 6551232 — since the original username was not blocked for policy violations, I don't think that we should count this as block evasion. On an unrelated note, am I correct that Moonriddengirl's contributions are all in her capacity as a volunteer, while Mdennis (WMF)'s contributions are all in her capacity as a WMF staffer? Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Normally we don't block people for a poorly executed "clean start" attempt following an RTV (and we certainly don't indef them for it) but he made a few obnoxious remarks at WT:Featured article candidates, where he and Moni3 were on opposite sides of a dispute over FA processes, so here we are. 28bytes (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey I should get credit for things far beyond my control more often. It would help my suffering self-esteem. Normally I would think myself fairly insignificant, but I like how powerful and influential I am in 28 bytes' description much more. Also, someone rub my feet now. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm pretty sure you're in control of who you block. I'd hope, anyway. 28bytes (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Obligatory response calling attention to your ridiculous premise. Invitation to talk page where complaints and discussion regarding the block never took place. Diff to Elen of the Roads' comment supporting block. Reminder PumpkinSky account unblocked by another user and reblocked by still another. Witty questions about intelligence of people in groups and/or on the Internet, unbreakable cycles of miscommunication. Melodramatic allusions to scapegoats and conspiracies. Escalation. Repeat. --Moni3 (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't give such flip answers, Moni, as editing Wikipedia is obviously incredibly important for this user. Normally blocks for sockpuppetry are a week or some such. The policy states "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator." You were aware at the time that the original acct was blocked and unusable, so why the indef block? Why indef, rather than some shorter period? It doesn't matter that no one asked at the time. I am asking you now. -- Dianna (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I would also like to hear from Moni3 about the thought processes and reasons involved in her block of PumpkinSky and remind her of the obligation on admins to explain their administrative actions on request. I join Dianaa in formally requesting such an explanation per WP:ADMINACCT, and have dropped a line for Moni3 on her talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't speak for Moni3, but for me it is an Inappropriate_use_of_alternative_account - although not strictly or neatly in one of the categories, there is prior history which illuminates the PS accounts' point of view which I feel is unfair and giving the illusion of two unconnected accounts having a particular point of view. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for that, but I'd like to hear from Moni3 with her explanation. I do appreciate your efforts to help during the unblock attempt, though. I should add that one thing that is being considered is an appeal of the original block to ArbCom, so arbs might want to take care.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As to your second point, yes, that's why the (WMF) is part of the username. MBisanz talk 06:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Once or twice I've muffed up which account I've logged into, but I've corrected it immediately. :) This is a community matter; the WMF has nothing to do with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unblock conditions?

      PumpkinSky was acting immaturely and disrupting the FAC talk page prior to getting blocked as an "sock" of Rlevse. I don't think many people will disagree with that comment, including his supporters. But the issue here is that isn't a sockpuppet according to our community consensus on sockpuppetry. Rlevse wasn't evading a ban or vote stacking, or other abusive matters. The only confirmed evidence of "vote stacking" that was provided was the Jojo situation in which is so confusing that the matter just should be dropped in accordance with WP:AGF, and that he no longer holds any tools. From the looks of it, PumpkinSky was a disastrous RTV/Clean Start. A disastrous clean start isn't a reason to block an account. There's a few users I know that are editing under clean starts or decided to just abandon their previous account, and there's probably dozens more doing that or evading bans etc. I myself tried to do an unsuccessful cleanstart after my desysopping so I could make my reputation "disappear" before I noticed that it was hard to follow. A more proper block was a block for disruptive editing, which a number of his comments in FAC and elsewhere were. But looking at Rlevse edits, over 99% of them was a net positive, and Rlevse years of experience will definably be useful in certain areas, including figuring out banned users, Wikipedia policies, some areas of DYK, and so on.

      I think an unblock of Rlevse/PumpkinSky will work with these restrictions.

      1. Rlevse is limited to one account.
      2. Rlevse is topic banned from any discussion related to the talk pages of featured article candidates and similar pages unless the discussion specifically involves him. He is allowed to nominate an article in FAC, or review an article. If he does nominate an article for FAC, Raul654 should avoid closing his FACs as an involved administrator. In addition Rlevse must discuss why he decided to go attack FAC with his PumpkinSky account. The topic ban can be removed through community consensus later on.
      3. Interaction ban between Rlevse and both Raul654 and SandyGeorgia (the only other editor I think an interaction ban is appropriate in this case is Will Beback but he just got banned, so no need).
      4. Rlevse is recommended to avoid reviewing articles from DYK until the community deems that Rlevse understand our copyright policies.
      5. Articles written by Rlevse (with the exception of simple stubs, disambiguation pages, and lists with little or no prose) should be checked by an independent reviewer who are extremely knowledgeable copyvio/plagiarism/fact checking concerns. I recommend it's not by one of the mentors that Rlevse selected like here, nor by someone who had previous issues with Rlevse as they are mostly WP:INVOLVED. I'm thinking someone like User:Laser brain could do the job.
      6. No mentoring, as Rlevse been in the project way too long, and had almost every high-trust level job available in this project (bureaucrat, checkuser, ArbCom) that it was a bit shocking that he thought about needing one. Maybe some advise with article writing but that's it.
      7. Rlevse must discuss his relationship with User:BarkingMoon. If it's a personal matter that it must be discussed privately with ArbCom, it should be discussed there.
      8. Rlevse needs to explain why he decided to leave the project in a "hush" after the Grace Sherwood incident. I spoke to Rlevse though email communication for a few days after the original leaving, so I understand somewhat why he did it and it makes perfect sense. But the community should know as well (plus I don't know the full story).
      9. Almost all the copyright concerns coming from Rlevse has been cleaned. Most of the problematic ones were figured out using a quick Google check. The more advanced ones can be search through plagiarism tools like Copyscape (which I think certain trusted Wikipedia users should get access to it for free). So having Rlevse help cleaning it up wasn't needed unless it involves some rarer books, pamphlets, magazines, etc that isn't found on the Internet. The only way we could search for copyvio in that situation is if you have the source with you, so that's hard.

      I wrote the restrictions in accordance to community consensus regarding Rlevse in previous AN or talk page posts. That would resolve the main reasons why Rlevse stayed indef blocked in the first place. Honestly if we can't settle a consensus here, and these now weekly posts this case probably have to go to ArbCom given the situation. You could add additional conditions/terms for an unblock if I missed anything.

      Regrettably, the situation here with Rlevse has been more of a positive thing for the project because it helped form a huge issue with plagiarizing, fact checking and close paraphrasing which we mostly ignored before this happened. If Rlevse just cleaned up the Grace Sherwood article, maybe a few editors will quickly check his other FAs (many of which were mainly citation and massive copy editing work) and sweep it under the rug. Rlevse simply just shot himself multiple times in the past year and few months with his actions. Personally I think Rlevse learned his lesson and should be given a chance. He's not idiotic to know that if he wants to be unblocked from the project that his edits will be highly scrutinized. We talking about an editor who was an ArbCom member at one point. And if Rlevse rejects the entire proposal, and keeps going though new accounts, ignoring his faults, sadly a site ban is in order. Secret account 06:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Re "Rlevse wasn't evading a ban or vote stacking, or other abusive matters". Sorry, I disagree. He was evading a block or two. And persistently attacking people with whom you've had serious prior disagreements with a new account is probably one of the prime reasons why WP:SCRUTINY was written. (Otherwise I could have just created a new account and posted this comment with that instead as if ASCIIn2Bme had never commented on the Rlevse matter before. I can immediately imagine the question "whose sock are you?" addressed to my new account after that.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The User:BarkingMoon thing is concerning, and it would be really nice to find out what's up with that, but I'd like to see some way back for Rlevse that gets him in good stead and working on the project again. An interaction ban might help leave any old grudges at the door. On the whole, these seem like good restrictions as trust is rebuilt. (With respect to hearing from ArbCom (as per below), I have no great opinion on that either way.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, Moonriddengirl, you should read ps's explanation of the BarkingMoon question, and the statements of those who have examined the evidence. If you find them insufficient, you should say so and say why with specificity and diffs. If you find ps's explanation of the JoJo closings insufficient, as you apparently did above, you should say so and say why, with specificity and diffs.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, Wehwalt, you should be careful about drawing conclusions about where people stand on issues. :) I did not link to the conversation in which I took part before, and won't, because it draws in somebody who doesn't deserve the drama. But I defended allowing his closures to stand. Creating "us" vs. "them" is part of the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, that is why I'm concerned that personallities have played to great a part in the PumpkinSky discussions. However, in my view, he's been hard done by, and I intend to civilly see that something is done about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Somebody hat these over-the-top wishful-restrictions, some of which are just talk. Giving FA-ville a free pass on PumpkinSky's views is unhelpful. Best to simply unblock him. Alarbus (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Somebody close this whole unblock discussion. The block was good, there's no consensus to unblock, and apart from Diana's blatant mischaracterizations, Rlevse's apologists here have not made any effort address Rlevse's numerous behavioral issues. Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It was a bad, obviously WP:INVOLVED indef block, and the only reason I didn't point this out loudly when it happened was in the interest of collegiality and avoiding drama. You don't indef people you're in a dispute with; this is basic admin policy 101. But now that Moni3 and others are trash-talking him further when he's not even here to defend himself, I feel no such restraint from mentioning it. The only thing that would have made it a worse, more WP:Involved block is if you'd done it yourself. And quite a few of his "apologists" have bent over backwards to address the legitimate concerns with his editing, including copyright mentoring (which was thrown back in our faces) as well as explicit restrictions on his editing. Saying his behavioral issues haven't been addressed – by either him or those who want to see him unblocked – is simply untrue. 28bytes (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      but it is autocrat 101 policy… Alarbus (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The consensus to unblock was running about 50-50 when Psky withdrew his request, it would have been interesting to see where it would have gone if it had been given a couple weeks. People who support an unblock of Rlevse are starting to feel pretty intimidated here; certainly I am. (If the comment "Oh goodness, so much unnecessary rhetoric still" after my last post wasn't a snipe at me to make me shut up, when what was it?) I think that Secret's proposal is a solid launching point, and if Rlevse's "apologists" are not going to be allowed to offer support, than his "persecutors" should likewise be asked to step aside and remain silent in favor of neutral third parties. To that end, Secret's proposal for an interaction ban between him and both Raul and Sandy is highly appropriate, and possibly a couple other people such as ASCIIn2Bme should likewise be ranked into a 'too partisan to be neutral' category. Will Beback has already been dealt with, and I must note that it was Will's attacks and blackmailing via email that upped the drama significantly in the whole situation. Rlevse/PSky's supporters have largely self-identified on the Psky user talk page, have those who wish to see him banned from wikipedia forever been so open? Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, my. Here we go again. Personalizing and accusations based on when I happened to weigh in on the discussion. And anyone impartial reading this would think I'd called for a block of Rlevse, or initiated the CCI, or opposed his FACs, or something! I'm also curious why we need to treat a former arb like a child (would that be because, as Moni observed, he acted like one?) Do we really need to tell a former arb that he is limited to one account? For that matter, do we really need to tell Raul not to close his FACs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (after ec with Wehwalt) You got that right. Feel free to provide a diff for context, and to also place it in context of everything else I said. Now, I realize that at AN and ANI admins and some others can say whatever they want without diffs, while some can't say boo anywhere even with diffs, but accusations of "too partisan to be neutral" are not or should not be taken lightly, and if someone is going to shoot that at me, I'd like to see some diffs that include all of my statements in context. Otherwise, Montanabw, please brush up on WP:NPA. By the way, who the heck has advocated that Rlevse should be banned forever? Will no one stop the incessant vague sniping, personalizing, and rhetoric going on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Followup cluestick: I have repeatedly said that my problems with Rlevse were more related to his sourcing than copyvio or anything else, and since the issue that he sourced articles to a website written and maintained by himself is a diffable fact that can't be disputed, I'd like to know what about that makes me "too partisan to be neutral"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Please try to tone it down a bit. We're all supposed to be working for the good of Wikipedia, right? It is good that editors care and are passionate, but we're getting an incivility spiral that doesn't progress the discussion towards consensus and generates bad blood that will continue to linger to the detriment of the project. Nobody Ent 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wehwalt's statement implying Moonriddengirl (MRG) hasn't read something was snarky and MRG's reply with the paraphrase was snarky too. FA-ville is an unnecessarily derogative term and characterizing Diana's analysis as blatant mischaracterizations and describing other editor's as apologists is too. 28's profanity, while perhaps intended for emphasis escalates the situation. "Here were go again" was a great line in a political debate but not helpful in a Wikipedia discussion. Nobody Ent 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I've crossed enough paths here to know you all can present your positions in a non inflammatory way if you choose to do so. Nobody Ent 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      And I make enough typos without help from you ! "Here were go again" ?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with 28bytes that Moni3 was involved, and should not have perfomed the block at all. --Dianna (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      For my own edification, can you supply links or diffs to interactions that make you feel that Moni3 was WP:INVOLVED? I don't remember thinking that at the time, but maybe I missed something. Discussions of Rlevse/PS have run all over WP and it's difficult to remember what happened and where. --Laser brain (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I can go diff-hunting if needed, but I don't think there's any serious disagreement that Moni3 and PS were on opposite sides of a heated discussion over FAC leadership last month. Each of them commented dozens of times on the matter at WT:FAC, continued the debate on other editors' talk pages and elsewhere, obviously with strong feelings on both sides. 28bytes (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Laser, there are other diffs I found concerning, but being the legal type, I like to hear from everyone. Please note that I have not called Moni involved, and she generally edits in the evenings US time. Let's wait for her. I'm busy with McKinley right now and don't have time for this :). It may be that this is a misunderstanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Laser brain, I don't see much evidence of Moni3 being involved with the exception of being involved in FAC, unless I'm missing something. It was a poor block though. There wasn't any basis for the block as an sockpuppet, as it doesn't qualify per our policy regarding them. With RTV, our guidelines is unclear on whether a block is appropriate to a returning RTV account. A block was more acceptable for disrupting FAC.
      @Raul654, most of the editors who opposed the grounds for Rlevse coming back was because there wasn't a clear consensus on what sanctions we should apply to him coming back to the project. They generally agreed that Rlevse is welcome to comeback with the proper settings, and under intense scrutiny. And there's clearly not any consensus for a ban. Only a handful of editors supported a site ban, one of whom later became banned himself. Also his self-proposal to comeback under his own conditions drove away some editors who might have supported him returning, including myself. There's is consensus for a Rlevse unblock, just not under the conditions that were set before. A topic ban from FAC, and a interaction ban with you and Sandy will satisfy most of your concerns. Secret account 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sandy. I agree that it's been a shame that some of the burden in this situation has been placed on you. You didn't have almost nothing to do with him leaving in the first place, and it was mostly you and Raul that bore the criticism of PumpkinSky. It's typical WP:INVOLVED that we try to avoid future drama, nothing to do with you guys personally. Like me and many other users were saying, if Rlevse didn't stormed out instead of settling what most likely would have been a minor slap in the wrist and back to normality for everyone, we clearly wouldn't be adding this conversation. A topic ban would be appropriate if he ever wants to return. Also the restrictions offered are ones that are typically offered to users in order to ease a return to editing from previous issues, either in here or through ArbCom, no matter the experience.
      Also did anybody even bother to contact Rlevse/PumpskinSky about this proposal? Thanks Secret account 06:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't read PSky's self-proposal to come back as a "under his own conditions" ultimatum of any sort so much as an opening proposal with some ideas (someone would have asked him for his own ideas had he not done so initially, right?). If memory serves, there were some ideas floated that modified his proposal to be stricter and he was viewing them favorably. The problem there, as here, is that the emotionality heated up so fast that the actual issues were drowned out. They are, then as now, unchanged: 1) A potential CCI problem (minor and taken care of), 2) some disputes at FAC that got personalized (snarky, but where's the policy violation or blockable offense?) and a 3) potential socking problem (an awk RTV return at most). And yes, an editor with sourcing issues, which are issues of WP:V, most of them since replaced anyway (some via the CCI, I fixed one myself) and not something that rises to an admin level. So I say Secret's proposal is still quite workable, including the interaction ban with individuals he has specifically named. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Diana, I'm going to answer you as forthrightly and honestly as I can, something Rlevse refused to do when I asked him to do so at least three times under his PumpkinSky account. What is clear to me doesn't appear to be clear to others, so I guess I'm going to have to point out what I think is obvious, so if it seems as if I'm condescending that is not my intention. Rlevse abandoned his primary account and returned twice under two different usernames. PumpkinSky was used, as you saw I'm sure, to write articles about Montana or whathaveyou. Honestly I have no idea what he did with the majority of his edits. However, what I did see quite clearly was his intervening in a contentious discussion about improving or changing leadership at FAC where he offered no helpful solutions and instead used invective, intoning that Raul and the delegates were dictators. He also deliberately acted stupid; this is not NPA. He asked during the discussions if editor retention on Wikipedia was indeed decreasing, something he already knew the answer to, and something I can only assume he did to appear new, or...stupid, actually. Diana offered that he was "angry and acting immaturely" and I agree with this.

      Here's the blindingly obvious part for me: I don't post unless I can answer the question "What does this solve?" It's what I consider a mark of maturity to use restraint when nothing really can be solved by someone's participation, even when one's reputation or image is at stake. Rlevse's invective and disruptive commentary during the FAC discussions, on Raul's talk page, on Casliber's and on my talk page solved absolutely nothing. It hindered understanding, and in fact worked against him and other editors favoring elections at FAC. I think I'm being painted here in a light in which I appear to be aligned solidly with Raul and SandyGeorgia as to this nebulous idea of "status quo" at FAC. First of all, no one defined what the hell that means. Secondly, no one ever asked me to clarify what my thoughts about FAC leadership. I hope I made myself clear that I thought elections a bad idea. I'm certainly not in the minority in that as the RfC proved. However, I wanted someone to make a good case for it, to persuade me how FAC might be different with substantial changes. I have my own issues with FAC, which is evident in the fact that I've written FA-quality articles but decline to get them assessed for anything. I never saw any reasoned, intelligent discussion about that. Instead, I saw unhelpful comments that were completely over the top, manipulative, and ultimately self-defeating. Not only did I ask Rlevse as PumpkinSky to tone down his comments, but I basically told him how to formulate them better so they would be more effective in persuading others. Unfortunately, Rlevse as PumpkinSky was not the sole perpetrator of this morass of miscommunication. I hope I made myself clear at the time that I was against elections at FAC because I see what the notion of self-protection and promotion does to the highest standards in groups. This is my definition of politics. Politics happens when people abandon their ideals and align themselves with others for self-protection and self-promotion. I was concerned that FAC's dedication to the highest standards would be compromised by politics. This discussion itself is evidence that I wasn't wrong.

      Now I want to point out what is happening here: Wikipedia has standards about not abusing multiple accounts, not using them to make serious procedural discussions more confusing, and not being deceptive about who you are and your experiences. My action to block an account that broke Wikipedia's rules is under scrutiny, which is both baffling and fascinating. Rlevse has a group of editors dedicated to allowing him to return to editing, a group that appears to prioritize his return over the fact that he broke rules and disrupted processes. While loyalty is admirable in many circumstances, this instead is the abandonment of standards in favor of Rlevse's return. Somehow your angst is being directed at me and I'll just state flat out that you are confused and misdirecting your energies. Before I get accused of being a part of a cabal, as I can expect the inevitable, I want you to reflect on how that definition applies to your participation in this scenario. The cabal accusation is overused and now empty. Once it comes out I stop listening. I'm not making that accusation; however, I am certainly pointing out that scrutinizing me for blocking an alternate account helps nothing and instead is evidence of convoluted priorities that I cannot imagine justifying.

      Diana insists Rlevse wants to return, but it is not clear to me what he really wants to return to. The Wikipedia where he edits articles about Montana? But that's the same Wikipedia where Raul and Sandy edit, FAC exists, and so does DYK and other venues where it has been proposed he avoid. It's the same Wikipedia that made rules against abusing multiple accounts. So what does Rlevse want? Actually, I don't know. I have not been made aware he wants to return after he last said he wanted to drop the idea. Nor do I know why he would want to return. Were I a part of a society that rejected me in the fashion that befalls sockmasters, I'd tell you all to go fuck yourselves and be happy as far away from you as possible. So why are we discussing Rlevse's return when he has not made it clear that he wants to come back?

      Regarding my being involved, I am as involved as Diana, Alarbus, and Wehwalt, all of whom participated in the FAC discussions. If you consider your judgment in this matter unaffected by your personal involvement, why do you not afford me the same? Also, why was I the editor to make this block? I dislike blocking. Where the hell was everyone else?

      Finally, my exchanges with Rlevse as PumpkinSky, and my participation in the FAC discussions, turned from expressing my questions about the wisdom of elections at FAC to focusing on editors using a level of communication befitting the seriousness of the issue. I want to reiterate that here. I do not know what can possibly be accomplished for Rlevse by going after me for blocking the PumpkinSky account. If someone can explain that I would appreciate it. Rlevse thought it a good idea to express his anger and frustration at specific editors and disrupt discussions. Would your energies not be better employed by helping him figure out why he felt it necessary to do that, helping him realize how he can redeem himself in this community and return better for overcoming his issues? There is no shame in admitting mistakes, despite the way discussions on the Internet usually go. In fact, it makes us stronger to look back and admit what we have done foolishly in the past and compare what we have learned afterward. I would admire Rlevse should he take this tack. Furthermore, the tone of communication here is bordering on the invective used at FAC that compelled me to ask Rlevse to tone it down. Regarding "trash talking", 28bytes, I wrote the article for The Dozens. You have misspoken; and you should refer to that article for details. I've responded to Diana's request with what I consider far more respect than what I'm being given. I think it would help this situation and any future Rlevse has here, if everyone involved considers what they post before "save page", particularly asking themselves if what they are posting can solve any particular problem or if it's just making things worse. --Moni3 (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Mkay, this is devolving into another 1st vs. 2nd mover advantage and "no consensus to [un]block". Given that the community is as deadlocked on this case as they are on the policy itself, I think this should be moved a full ArbCom case before anyone's bits come in the line of fire. Arbitrators have signed up to resolved cases where the community is bitterly divided and this surely appears to be one of those to me. Let ArbCom decide what sanctions or return restrictions are needed, if any. I think that is a superior alternative to bickering and reciprocal attacks this thread is quickly becoming. I'll be quite busy in real life for the next 24hrs or so, but I'll be able to present evidence later in the weekend if the case is accepted. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Blocking is a tool not a sanction. I see no purpose for an ArbCom case until RLevse/PS re-expresses a wish to return. There would then be many issues that could usefully be discussed (with the participation of RLevse/PS) to achieve mutual understanding; such efforts are prerequisite to a community call for arbitration (RLevse/PS can of course make a direct appeal instead).Geometry guy 00:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @Moni3: That's a reasonable, (and reasonably calm) summary. I've reviewed the prior (Feb14) discussion which I did not participate in:
      • I don't think anyone is disputing that PS broke Wikipedia rules. That said, we have a dispute resolution system, not a justice system, so what sanctions are appropriate is always a legitimate topic of conversation.
      • Given your involvement with featured articles and PS's disruption of the FA community, it would have been preferred another editor make the block to avoid the appearance of impropriety. This is not to say the block was unjustified nor that it should be reversed and certainly none of the desysop! nonsense that occurs far too infrequently. Nobody Ent 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree that given that they were on opposite sides in the FA debate it would have been better if someone else had performed the block. @Moni3: I would still be interested in hearing more specifically why you chose an indef block rather than a finite block. That question remains unanswered, unless I have missed something? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Why would it be other than indefinite? That's what is indicated for sock blocks. Nobody Ent 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The idea is you block socks indefinitely. The primary account block is discretionary. "The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator."--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Red is gray and yellow, white. But we decide which is right. And which is an illusion

      — Moody Blues, Days of Future Passed
      Which is the sock, and which is the main account? Whether the length of the applied block was technically correct isn't a useful question to hash through in the context of moving forward and reaching consensus. Nobody Ent 10:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's a better thing to be focusing on right now: whether or not Pumpkin Sky wishes to edit, and if so, under what conditions that will be happening. Thanks for your input. -- Dianna (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Overtaken by events above.
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

      What we should hear from ArbCom before any further !voting on unblocking takes place here

      We should hear that the BarkingMoon and IP socking concerns have been addressed in a matter satisfactory to the majority of the Committee without breaching Rlevse's privacy, i.e. without on-wiki disclosure. I want to see an ArbCom motion voted along the lines of "After examining on-wiki evidence and having heard an explanation from the account(s) involved, in the opinion of the Committee the concerns about sockpuppetry and/or evasion of scrutiny do not justify a block or other sanction of PumpkinSky." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Support request for motion
      1. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose request for motion
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Continuing BRD editing of core policy (WP:V)

      The page has been indef proteted by Elen of the Roads -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      It is, IMHO, high time for the WP administrative body to exercise due oversight as to the WP propriety of BRD editing to core policy pages, WP:V to be specific. The stability of that core policy page has degraded to the point where sandbox-esque editing has become the rule as opposed to the exception. The attention/consideration of administrators to this issue is, IMHO, sorely needed. Please have a look. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think it's a good idea to have a few more eyes here, as well. We have good-faith editors genuinely trying to clarify wording and remove ambiguity, but it's very hard to make (or even attempt) any improvements whatsoever. Pesky (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      See also: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#At Wikipedia:Verifiability --Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It ain't "BRD", because reverting any of these sandbox changes, no matter how inane, has been labelled "disruptive stonewalling". So BRD has been perverted to B, then D, and then maybe R (if it's not "disruptive"). It's a circus. Doc talk 21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      True, it isn't helpful when someone accuses someone else of "disruptive stonewalling". It also isn't helpful when someone calls good faith edits "inane". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you don't see me reverting anything in the latest free-for-all, now do you? And you won't - I have pretty much washed my hands of this. Being accused of disruption and sockpuppetry(!) over this colossal mess is just about enough for me. Enjoy. Doc talk 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't see me reverting either, nor accusing anyone of disruption, socking, or inanity. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Cool. You can continue to not make any accusations and stay in the fray, but I am going to do what so many others have done before, and get the hell out of the quagmire. Many will be happy about this, but none more than me. It's off my watchlist, I really don't care anymore what the policy says. Completely rewrite the entire thing if you want to, as is happening right now (on a WP:CONLIMITED basis). Seeya, WP:V! :) Doc talk 21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      We should just slow down a bit. I think some progress is being made, and the changes haven't affected the core meaning. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree with that. My reason for linking, above, to the mediation is that it might, perhaps, be a solution to the concerns raised here. (The DRN is what led to the mediation.) It's certainly true that additional eyes would be helpful. Beyond that, I'm not sure what administrators can be expected to do. Perhaps there's a case for full protection until after the mediation process is completed. But that would probably be excessive, since there really isn't any edit warring. Rather, there's some edits being made, some better than others, and a bit of name-calling on the talk page between those who object to BRD editing of a core policy page and those who feel obstructed by those objections from making progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It has been mostly constructive and friendly. (and I'm the one who put up the "Too many edits" title/section.) We need something that is in between a 1,000-man-hour 3 month dead-end process for each proposed change and spontaneous edits with no conversation. Like get a few folks to agree before doing "B" in BRD (= semi-bold :-) ) North8000 (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Doc. I wish you would consider getting involved in the mediation. I've been substantively gone so long from that page I don't know what is going on but I think if the recent participants got involved in mediation you could wrap this all up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Nah, I'm done. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the events of the last few days have really made me want to have nothing more to do with this. Cheers... Doc talk 21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah well, you can always join in later . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Never again. The community needs to fix the situation with one of their core content policies, but they are going to do it without this particular member of this allegedly powerful minority that has allegedly been part of "controlling" this policy through "stonewalling". Cheers, Alanscottwalker! :> Doc talk 05:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      hmmm, Yes. You do sound evil and incredibly powerful. Perhaps it's a badge of honor? At any rate, happy editing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Special:Contributions/Nickerss

      Perhaps a troll, perhaps not, in any case his behaviour so far is not appropriate (asking personal info, etc). Left a message on his talk page but I'm not going to be able to follow up on it, so maybe someone here can keep an eye on him. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, at least he has made it clear in this edit that he is WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. →Στc. 04:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I put him on my watchlist. Let me know what happens post-your warning and post your notifying him of this report (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012)

      Effective 1 March 2012, Avraham (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), and Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. MBisanz (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

      The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Keegan (talk · contribs) who is expected to remain in office until 31 March 2012.

      Support motion
      AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Xeno.
      Not voting
      David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork, SirFozzie.

      For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Two users with same user picture

      Inactive accounts for years, no action needed. This report was unnecessary in the first place, I fear. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      User:Sarojkumarsahoo and User:Sarozkumar will have same user picture. Is it Okay.--Musamies (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Almost certainly the same individual, 2 different accounts; probably lost password to first and created second. Neither has edited for years - nothing to see here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you a) discussed the policies around WP:Alternate accounts with them, and b) advised them (both of them - even though they are obviously the same person) that you have brought them here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be pointless as the user (in both his incarnations) hasn't edited since 2008. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 13:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Recent activity

      Why did it look like it was uploaded to commons today? [8] ? Nobody Ent 23:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Good question. I figured the answer was that the image had been uploaded and deleted, only for someone else to upload another one under the same name, but the logs don't show any evidence that there's ever been another image (either at en:wp or at Commons) named Saroj.jpg. Saroj1.rout exists, but his only edits are to his sandbox so far. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like uploaded the photo on commons Nobody Ent 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but that doesn't explain why the users linked a nonexistent file. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Cherry picking of facts to make a subject look bad

      Do we have an essay for the following event? A user comes to an article. The user dislikes the subject, often because it jives with his/her political or religious beliefs. So the user will find events of undue weight which make the subject look bad. Example:

      • (From a pro-Star Wars POV pusher, adding the following to an article)====Fight with fans==== On August 3, 2004, Patrick Stewart was seen fighting with fans and yelling obscenities at them. (Further discussion about the event in an ostensibly neutral fashion, but the real point of the text is to show the reader an event that makes him look like a scumbag).<ref>(include blog post as reference where the blog thinks this is a huge scandal)</ref> (Please note, this is of course a fictional event; Mr. Stewart never did such a thing on such a date)

      I see this kind of thing happen all the time, and I don't see any essay for it, even though it kind of sucks. The closest I can find is WP:CHERRY, which doesn't quite fit, and WP:UNDUE, which I don't think quite fits either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:I just don't like it? GiantSnowman 17:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No; that's about deletion discussions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've noticed this in performer articles too; it seems some editors, after seeing a lacklustre show, will see the need to report on that bad show. Usually they can find a blog post to back up their unsatisfactory experience. Sometimes WP serves as a release valve for angry people. The Interior (Talk) 17:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, 'I don't like it' is about deletion discussions; 'I just don't like it' covers article content (among other stuff) GiantSnowman 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Cherry and Undue seem to cover it, unless you're looking for an essay describing the motives behind why the user wants to make the edits? Or using bad sources to justify the material? --Onorem♠Dil 17:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that WP:CHERRY refers to a coatrack, so it's only when the user wants to talk about another subject entirely. In this case, the user isn't trying to change the subject, rather to criticize the current subject. As for WP:UNDUE, yes this falls under its umbrella, but undue weight can be a reference to any undue weight whatsoever, whereas I'm referring only to the type of undue weight that is given when a person wants to make the subject look bad and cherry picks subjects that accomplish this purpose. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I still think it works for conveying the idea about what's wrong with that type of edit. WP:CHERRY may be located on the page about coatracks, but its argument clearly stands by itself too. (Anyway...back on topic. I don't know about a separate fact picking essay myself, but I'll look around a bit) --Onorem♠Dil 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I no longer pay much attention to policy pages, but WP:UNDUE ought to be the correct diagnosis. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Perhaps the part of WP:UNDUE beginning with the benchmark: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."? Cherry-picking is disproportionate coverage. DMacks (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      facepalm... --MuZemike 01:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Perhaps a good essay is the one I wrote. Not sure. Try reading Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat#Levitation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to pile on, WP:UNDUE is probably the most relevant policy in this situation, though several others are also relevant (most obviously, WP:BLP and WP:RS). From my experience though, this is a difficult issue to deal with - I'm aware of several editors who cherry pick facts they like from academic sources to write articles which push their views while ignoring other parts of the source which contradict this viewpoint and/or deliberately reference only a narrow range of sources when developing articles on controversial topics in which there are competing views. This is obviously highly dishonest editing, but there's no clear-cut policy which can be pointed to. 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Nick-D (talk)
      I disagree. This policy seems to be pretty much covering it Giving "equal validity".--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:COATRACK and WP:TE. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Good faithed sock alternate account

      Somebody should tell this editor that using two accounts is not good. No blocks, he is not disruptive, but a friendly warning seems in order: Googolplanck (talk · contribs), Xjmos (talk · contribs). Red flag edit. Perhaps he wants to rename his account? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't see any problems with the new account so far. As long as one is not trying to evade scrutiny by doing so, I don't see how that is not prohibited. --MuZemike 02:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Alternate accounts are not socks. Nobody Ent 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The "red flag edit" link is a demonstration that the user already knows the policy and is following it. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Special:DoubleRedirects

      The log page is cluttered again in a manner bots can't fix.

      • User:DCI's rename generated problems as user was renamed from DCI to two usernames and then back to DCI again generating self redirects.
      • .js and .css pages after username renames should be deleted as they are of no use.
      • Multiple people are "testing" double redirects on en.wikipedia cluttering the log. En.wikipedia shouldn't be the place for bot tests and perhaps these should be migrated to test.wikipedia or some other wiki. Meta also has such a page mind you.

      Thanks. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

       Done - I've fixed all of the broken redirects, deleted the .css and .js pages, edited the fully protected pages and left messages on the 2 user talk pages of the users that were experimenting with redirects. Thanks, The Helpful One 13:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      One of the biggest reasons we have userspace is to allow testing. If you look at WP:UP, you'll notice that the only type of redirect prohibited is that of redirecting a user talk page to anything except the user talk page of another account controlled by the same person. There is no good reason to delete. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed userpages can be used for testing purposes. However Special:DoubleRedirects should not be used for testing purposes. Such pages in peoples userspace can have a performance impact on the entire site as these redundant double redirects show up under Special:DoubleRedirects which has finite slots per iteration. If these people are testing something for the past several months I think we should know what exactly are they testing and why they cannot run these tests on test.wikipedia or some other location. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      Policy permits it right now. If you don't like it, bring it up at WT:UP. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Very well. This thread can be closed as the +40 double redirects have been dealt with. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

      Unblock request from Checker Fred

      We received an unblock request on the unblock mailinglist from Checker Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm putting the mailconversation (with Checker Fred's approval) here for evaluation. The only change is some formatting for easier reading:

      I created an account named Checker Fred but got blocked after being called a sock puppet on Wikipedia. So after I was blocked I just left the site, I did not know what I did wrong to get blocked and was following the rules and everything. So I mainly went to tv.com and the iCarly wiki to do my editing. So when this iCarly issue came up I created another account Named Oolith and it got blocked under the same sock. The user did not explain anything to me and just blocked my account. I did request an ip over ride because I do edit from shared ip address like shools and work, but I never created the Simulation12. My edits under Checker Fred are very good and helpfull to the site and I don't see why I was blocked. I have made good edits while I was there, I was able to help inprove pages and other issues no the site. I would like to try and work thigs out with MuZemike and beable to edit on Wikipedia. I would love to have a second chance and show you that I can edit in a resonable mannor. (Checker Fred)

      Hi Checker Fred,
      When I read your unblock request, I read the following:
      • You have an account named Checker Fred which was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12 on june 30th
      • You have a second account named Oolith from which you requested an IP block exempt
      • You are not the same person as Simulation12
      Some questions remain open:
      • Have you ever created any other accounts?
      • What is your relation to Simulation12?
      • Have you ever edited anonymously since the account Checker Fred was blocked? (Me)
      I have not created any more accounts other then Checker Fred and Oolith on Wikipedia. At the time I created Oolith, I forgot that I created Checker Fred on Wikipedia because I was haven't been on the site in awhile. I have no relation to Simulation12. On January 28, I open a case on Simulation12 because while I was editing I found a user named Simulation22 and another User named The Cool Kat2 so I reported it as a sock of Simulation12, I have herd of this user while looking at The Cool Kat Archivies and found that about Simulation12. as The Cool Kat2 that account just looked a bit odd to me, so I just went ahead and reoprted that one as well. So after I found out I reported I started using Wikipedia on December 29, 2009 to edit pages from my favorite television shows and help out on the site. After I left there, I have not anonymously used the site. I was mainly on tv.com ruffmanfan88 and Ruffman882 (first account can not log in anymore,) and the iCarly wiki under Checker Fred. that I just started using more often on the iCarly wiki. Since the iCarly issue came up again, I wanted to give my input to Wikipedia as well, since it was mainly started there. So I ended up creating Oolith. I would love to have a second chance and show you that I can edit in a reasonable manor and work this problem out.. Please ask any other questions if you have any. (Checker Fred)

      Checker Fred was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12, though there was no technical evidence (came out as unrelated on checkuser), on behavioural evidence. I find the assertion that Checker Fred has absolutely no relation to Simulation12 hard to swallow, from the support vote on the non-transcluded RfA of Simulation12, though it is possible.

      I would also like to point out that this case is from 2010, and that there has been no further disruption from simulation12 since that year. That solidly puts us in standard offer territory in either case. Heavy iCarly interest does give me some competence fears, but nothing insurmountable. I suggest that unblocking, with a clear instruction on what is, and what isn't accepted, is a good idea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I will note the following users are  Confirmed as each other:

      Checker Fred/Simulation12 has been actively engaging in an off-wiki harassment campaign against myself and several other users. User:The Master of disguises was a sleeper sock that was recently used to engage in email harassment; I won't copypaste any emails, but he stated that he has dozens of other sleepers that he will use to continue said harassment until he is unblocked. These socks have been, for the past year or so, been sending harassing emails to myself and others (one of them even posed as his mother).

      Some unfounded sock allegations have been made on my talk page on Commons here (as well as via an en.wiki unblock request on an IP here), none of which are true after checking. I feel this is due to failure to WP:OWN the iCarly (season 4) article (amongst all the other articles, including Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman, Simulation12's main target), as evidenced here.

      Given the recent harassment, I feel that WP:OFFER has not been met in any way, shape, or form, and that any considerations of unban or unblock of any users here are ill-advised. --MuZemike 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposed unban/unblock of User:TrEeMaNsHoE

      I received this email yesterday from banned user User:TrEeMaNsHoE (copied below with permission from TrEeMaNsHoE):

      Dear User: MuZemike,

      I am User: TrEeMaNsHoE. I was emailing you to request that my indefinate block be uplifted. I was blocked in November 2009 for participating in sockpuppetry. At the time, I did not know it was wrong, however was having trouble expressing myself and my talkpage was thus revoked. I continued to open new accounts, because I thought that if I was using one it would be okay. Now, I know that what I had been doing was wrong, and fully promise to never engage in sockpuppetry again and to abide by wikipedia's guidelines. In September 2011, I was told that if I refrained from socking for six months, my unblocking would be re-reviewed. If unblocked, I promise to use this and only this account, and look forward to editing and learning new things from the wikipedia experience. Thank you for your time,

      User: TrEeMaNsHoE

      Currently, he hasn't been causing any additional abuse that has led to his ban for at least over a year. I prefer not to unblock without community discussion since the ban back in 2009 was established by community consensus. I will jump out and say that I support an unban and unblock. Thoughts? --MuZemike 23:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Conflicted Because I am generally a big believer in second chances, but this user already had theirs and spit in the faces of those (including me) who gave it to them. See the page history of User talk:PlannerPenBackpack. I extended WP:OFFER to this user, to give them a chance to prove they could reform, and they made it less than a week before being caught socking again. Just going away doesn't prove they can be a productive member of the community here, although I'll grant it's a start. I'm just not sure we can trust this user after so many lies in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting three admins to close long RfC

      This is a second request from four days ago. The RfC on Genesis creation narrative has now run its full 7 days, and we haven't received any new arguments for a while. The subject has been heavily contested in the past, so I agree with others who have called for a 3 admin close. If any impartial admin who hasn't taken part has the time, it would be appreciated. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=480078620"