Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	12
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 07:19:38 on May 19, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Vote counting

I'm hoping to provoke some thought rather than raise Cain about this, but I tend to think Everyking's RFA was closed on a pure vote count, rather than an evaluation of the strength of the arguments. (This is ironic -- or perhaps fitting -- as direct vote counting would be closer to Everyking's philosophical preference; weighting of arguments is the community's preference.)

• First, to be clear. A large number of opposers cited very valid concerns.
• But a significant number had opposes based off their misunderstanding of the exchange over Q5. The context of Everyking's previous comments and his clarifications all make it clear that he was expressing an opinion about how he would prefer Wikipedia operated, and not his understanding of what was accepted practice, or what he would do.
• One case is dealing with fact and the other opinion -- that's a non-trivial distinction. The question What is the accepted/codified/etc way to evaluate consensus on Wikipedia? has correct and incorrect answers. The question How would you prefer things work? does not have correct and incorrect answers.
• I believe that many of the Q5 opposers clearly misinterpreted this exchange, believing a question with "right" and "wrong" answers has been asked, rather than a question about an opinion. (A handful of Q5 opposers may be proponents of Wiki-thoughtcrime, although that's a different discussion). So with only a few exceptions the Q5 opposes were extremely weak or even logically meaningless.

I'm not trying to get the RFA overturned (although I would have liked a rational, as I think this was very borderline). Rather I'd hope here to spur some thinking about the general issue of whether word salad or confusion from opposers can form the basis for an oppose to which bureaucrats give weight (or vice versa, it'd be equally problematic if you had a huge volume of support based off something logically meaningless). --JayHenry (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I too thought that a rationale would have been nice in this case. The safe call here was clearly no consensus, particularly because I think history has shown that any other call at that level of numerical support would become very controversial very quickly. Since I supported EK, I might have preferred that a bureaucrat weigh the merit of the opposition when determining the outcome... But generally speaking this isn't something they do, and since we have a tendency to pick bureaucrats who are extremely consistent at not making controversial decisions we can't really expect it. I'm not sure I'd have the same sympathy for the rouge approach if my personal opinion on the candidate went the other way, and I expect many others are in the same boat. In the end, the request simply closed outside the discretionary range and that seems to take weighing the arguments out of the picture. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also interested in whether consideration is given to the damage done by a deliberate attempt to disrupt the RfA. Ottava Rima's repeated postings were sufficiently disruptive for him to be banned from the RfA at AN/I. His comments evidently influenced !votes in both directions. How does behaviour of this type influence the evaluation and closing of RfA's? Is it simply assumed that all !votes would have been the same had there been no disruption? EdChem (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW (not much), I would have closed as no consensus also (if I were a crat, and had not voted, of course). There was ample discussion from the opposition about the various reasons that Q5 was a problem; and even if there had not been, opposition arguments tend to be shorter and not cover all the bases. When you get turned down for a job or school application, they don't go into the 30 reasons they think you suck; that would be cruel, and pointless, and it would waste their time with pointless conflict. A single, reasonable-sounding reason has always been considered good enough at RFA; a philosophical discourse on its meaning is not required. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about philosophical discourse though. Perhaps I was too long-winded in introducing the topic. If an oppose or support is actually logically meaningless how can it be "reasonable-sounding"? Is "Oppose. Has incorrect opinions" a valid oppose if it is repeated amply? What about "Oppose. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the closer, but I would have closed it the same way, even though I do very much weigh the strength of the arguments involved when I close RfAs. I can't speak for all of the other currently active bureaucrats, but I know many of us weigh the strength of arguments. Weighing works on both sides though, not just against one or another. In this case I was happy to see that many people were able to let go of long past issues and only look at his current suitability and focus on recent actions. And while it is unfortunate that his opinion on consensus was very different from what people wanted to see, that doesn't make those votes misunderstandings. People used his comments and made reasoned arguments about why they felt that made him not an ideal admin candidate. Therefore there was no really large number of spurious votes and even if I disagree with peoples' reasoning, I don't take that into account when I close. I simply weigh if the argument is sound and supported by reasoning. It's like what the supreme court would refer to as the ideal reasonable person idea. If an informed reasonable person could make the argument, it's not spurious. Though I'll throw in a disclaimer here, I didn't do an extensive sock analysis here which I would have if I were closing and thought it would make a difference. - Taxman ^Talk 03:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Offering a reason and making a reasoned argument are not the same thing. One would conclude that an informed reasonable person would not make a logically meaningless argument such as "incorrect opinion" or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", and therefore a spurious argument such as this would indeed be discounted? --JayHenry (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm evidently non-neutral here, but I will say that I think some form of rationale in the close would have been helpful. There was a distinct lack of consensus, but I think a remark is always useful in such close and angst-ridden RfA's as this one. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not participate, but I did go back to the RFA to check if there was a rationale posted. I was kind of disappointed not to see one, but I equally did not expect there to be one. It might have been nice to have one there, but I don't think it was absolutely necessary in this case. Useight (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though many ask for a rationale, I personally would not have left a rationale for this RFA. It was fairly contentious and there were good and valid points on all sides. Consensus did not exist and it doesn't take a trained eye to see that. Andre (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was it closed as "no consensus", rather than "unsuccessful"? I'm not challenging the end result, though I must agree that a brief rationale would have been useful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See the definitions here. "Unsuccessful" is for RFAs with sub-50% support. You may also be interested in the discussion here. Useight (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, I only asked that question for the sake of argument. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured that was what you were most likely doing. Useight (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd still be interested in thoughts on my question from earlier in the thread, about RfA's where there is substantial disruption from a single user. EdChem (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In closing this RfA I did not see the results warranted a closing statement. It was not a borderline case. There was not a consensus, and the arguments made in opposition were nearly all rational and valid. "No consensus" was not the "safe call," it was the only call.

You may not agree with or like the rationale opposing Everyking's opinion on Q5, but that opposition was valid nonetheless. That opinion bothered a number of people. When public opinion leans hard in one rational direction, it must rarely be ignored.

As for Ottava Rima's behavior, I feel it was over the top and disruptive, but in the end it is impossible to determine how many !opposes were solely because of Ottava Rima and how many !supports were in reaction to Ottava Rima. How Ottava Rima is dealt with in the future is not a decision for the Bureaucrats, however; it is a decision for the entire community.

I am happy to answer any questions. And I happy to add a closing statement to the RfA if there is a demand for it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the process makes it hard to see evidence of weighing the reasoning behind votes, I suppose, because there is so often no visible sign of it having been done. Some 'crats have always said that they weigh rationales, but since the closing outcome so rarely is at odds with the numerical indication my sense has always been that this is not actually common. Giving participants and observers a clearer picture of when judgment comes into play might be another use, in the general case, for more regular closing statements. As for "safe" -- well, this call was clearly the safe call, but I wasn't clear above and I'm sorry if I gave any offense; unsuccessful here is safe in the sense that it conforms to what most would expect from a traditional interpretation of the requests' closing state. I didn't mean to imply that it was closed as unsuccessful because that was seen as the safe call.

This traditional interpretation is what, I think, Jay is questioning. Most of the oppose votes weren't trolling or blatantly invalid in some other way; they were the opinions of reasonable people with reasonably held beliefs, although I and others think they were misunderstanding the answer that prompted so much opposition. As Kingturtle points out, normal practice is to count these votes as valid. Is that the right approach, though? If a crowd of people clearly misinterpret an answer, can a bureaucrat take note of that misunderstanding and disregard votes that follow from it? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason RfA lasts for 7 days is so that we can talk about these things during the RfA. Sometimes I'll explicitly say what it is I'm waiting to see from the supporters ... I did in this case. Even when people don't give an invitation, you can guess what it is that needs rebutting. (Even though some just deposit their vote and don't look again, there is a critical mass who do pay attention.) I didn't see much engagement of the opposition in this one, and as a result, no one was swayed. I think the crats take the position that it's the job of the community to pick admins, which implies it's not their the crats' job to fill in the gaps, to do things left undone in the RfA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I pointed it out is the irony, Dan. Do you honestly not realize that what you just articulated is almost identical to the thoughtcrime for which Everyking was opposed? --JayHenry (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

When they close an RFA where their decision falls within the traditional given range, they are "counting noses." When they close an RFA where it does not, they are, "unjustly dismissing the will of the community." Dlohcierekim 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's always at the margins that this sort of dissent occurs, perhaps to state the obvious. Accordingly, those who are on the opposing side of the decision might find some reason to carp, because of course, their concerns have not been given appropriate weight. WP:RFB is arguably a higher hurdle to jump than WP:RfA, because of the higher responsibilities (and I do not say "powers" advisedly) involved. It behoves crats in such circumstances to explain their reasoning, and thus far, I have been impressed by the cogency of crats' arguments I've seen in borderline cases, and although there is no appeal, as such, against that decision, I've seen few admin approvals in such circumstances turn out to be an error of judgement- on the evidence available to the the closing crat at the time. As to failed RfAs in borderline cases, our problem is that there is no way we can know whether the crat's decision was correct or not; such cases are rare, because of the requirement for clear consensus to promote, and that is usually (at least numerically) beyond doubt. All this suggests to me that we are largely getting it right.</ramble> Rodhullandemu 00:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The congratulations-on-becoming-an-admin message

Hi guys,

I'm not sure whether it's a manual message or a template, but the information you leave on someone's talk page when they're promoted to Sysop should probably contain a link to / information about #wikipedia-en-admins (#wikipedia-en-admins ^connect), as I only just discovered it more or less by accident after about 6 months as a Sysop. At least, that's my suggestion. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We have several flavors of congrats msgs. I'll add it to mine. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't mandatory information, and I don't think the IRC clique should become too intertwined with on-wiki stuff. It's normal for admins to find IRC by way of word of mouth when they have some contacts and experience. Andre (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am and will always be in favour of the deliberate separation of Wikipedia from IRC. I really do not consider information about wikipedia-en-admins to be entirely necessary information. Still, I'm willing to consider what others may have to say. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• #wikipedia-en-admins was created primarily as a working tool for contacting other administrators for assistance, and for that reason, I do continue to support IRC as a mechanism for quick communication between sysops. As I outline in my advice for new administrators, the first few weeks of sysopship often present issues one has never encountered before, and so new administrators would be well served with directions to join the channel—which, in almost all cases, is a useful and productive forum. Perhaps the concerns over the channel becoming a substitute for on-Wiki decision-making would be best tempered with the insertion into the bureaucrats' promotion messages of a reminder for the newly promoted sysops that the channel is a tool for garnering assistance and not for making decisions.
  I'm not a bureaucrat, but I have been using IRC for several years and am aware both of the positive and of the negative aspects of it; take my two pence as you will.
  AGK 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not a bad idea, but I'm going to leave my spartan boilerplate IRC-free. I just think it's a good idea to keep them separated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You think that's spartan? User:Andrevan/promote. Andre (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Apparently, mine is not spartan. Mine is... madness? Okay, that meme didn't work there nearly as well as I thought it would. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks like someone needs a trip to the pit... I typically improvise each message instead of templating. Generally I mention New Admin School, and that's it. bibliomaniac15 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • AAAARHGHHHHHAndre (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I have opened a RfA on myself, despite being a standing admin. Basically, I am requesting reconfirmation of the Communities trust in my ability to use the mop/buttons/flags. As far as I am aware I am not under scrutiny regarding my admin status anywhere else. My point in raising this matter now is that in a weeks time (unless I have really screwed up in my evaluation of my standing, in which case I should be desysopped sooner rather than later) one of you fine folk will need to close this. You may want to have a discussion amongst yourselves over what criteria and what weight should apply regarding supports/opposes that refer to admin actions over that of general (un)trustworthiness, or whether patterns of disquiet should be given more weight than a single instance of really bad judgement/action. I have also asked that support comments should note any area of "improvement required" should it be deemed appropriate. What weight might be placed on such a comment, even though the editor is generally supporting, where there are opposes also noting the same is another matter for consideration. In short, I think I may have handed you something of a hot potato.
The other reason why I am noting this, is that it is my hope that I will not be the last as well as the first admin in goodish standing to put myself up for reconfirmation. You may need to consider that you will be applying your judgement to more of these applications in future. Have, er, fun! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just be like a regular RfA? If you have our trust, you keep the bit, and if not, off to meta? Synergy 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the firm belief that RFA was created for the express purpose of creating administrators. As a process it is not made to evaluate editors who are already administrators. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that this wouldn't be binding if he fails? Synergy 00:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RfB is on the same page, why not RecFA? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because for every idea, there are 30 people who don't like it. I think this is where it should be honestly, but anywhere is fine, so long as its binding. Synergy 00:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since nothing has been done to address methods of admin reconfirmation (or even recall in general), whatever process used could be considered binding, I suppose. bibliomaniac15 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bibliomaniac. This was ill-advised. I have opposed as a result, and I urge any other bureaucrats who read this to agree with Biblio and me and just close it as disruptive. (Well, he didn't say that, but he agrees it was a misuse of the RfA process). Andre (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're all so sure it's disruptive then close it, rather than urging others to close it. I realise you commented, but to me, that seems like a bit of a cop out. Something's stopping you from just doing yourself, and I think it's doubt whether it would be the right move to close it or not. I don't really have much of a problem with it. Sure, it's not ideal, but little is. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's the correct move, but I also opposed the RfA so I don't want to overstep my bounds. Plus me acting alone could provoke a backlash, whereas 3+ bureaucrats in agreement should be pretty safe. Andre (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

hmm then a Wikipedia:Request for admin evaluation is long overdue, not all decisions need to be made by the arbcom, some should be left to the community to decide ...--Warpath (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin Review. Xclamation point 12:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, but thats for the admins and levels above to add their names themselves to the review, what about non-admin putting forward a name of an admin they would like to be reviewed or evaluated ? ..--Warpath (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the purpose of Category:Administrators open to recall. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much the purpose of CAT:AOR, but there is a note-worthy difference: AOR is extremely passive, while something like this takes a much more active approach. Kind of a "If anyone ever notices anything wrong, go ahead and bring it up" versus "Is anything wrong?" Useight (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with AOR is that the admins are the ones that can add themselves but if non-admin members of the community thinks that one certain admin can no longer fulfill his/her rights as an admin, where should he/she bring this up..WP:AN?..where it might get laughed at and thrown out. Some admins do add themselves to the AOR cat, but seriously, they don't ever want to be recalled so I think we must prioritize AOR to all admins as that will be fair and maybe get a new policy or add to a current one that all admins will be evaluated/reviewed by its peers and/or the community once every 6 months, that will be a step in the right direction...--Warpath (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A major problem with evaluating admins every six months is that this equates to dozens of admins being evaluated weekly; this would be extraordinarily time consuming, and, in my opinion, not necessary. Useight (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about annually or on a 14-month basis? Not ideal, but it would result in a slightly lighter workload. Plus, most reconfirmation RfA's would be low-traffic, near-100% support open-and-shut cases. AGK 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets see... 1,657 admins... divided by 52 weeks in a year... If the annual reconfirmation were to go through, that's on average 31.87 reconfirmation RFAs a week. Isn't that a little much? Xclamation point 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)I substituted this, to keep a record for the future. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if only the ~900 active admins were to be reevaluated annually, that'd still be 17 weekly. And I agree that a vast majority of the cases would be nearly 100% support, which is actually a reason not to have mandatory reconfirmations. Useight (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory reconfirmations would make adminship a Big Deal^TM in my opinion, though I'd fully support an optional process. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the community is hellbent on not having a de-sysop policy, something must be done to make sure that everything is fair. 1657 admins you say?..how many of those are even around?..over 70% of those haven't edited in a year or more I believe, so JulianColton, you are saying that adminship is a permanent right? because without reconfirmations and/or a de-sysop policy, the number of admins will surely rise, but the percentage of active admins will drastically fall..--Warpath (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I believe the flag should be removed on accounts that haven't edited in several years. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too, but I don't see that happening in a foreseeable future and maybe only Jimbo has the power to see that happening, its no use having a big board of directors where only a few are working and the rest are having a nice longggg rest ;) ..Maybe in a perfect world, we can have all active admins, a very active community and no trolls..oh wait..yeah that can never happen.....--Warpath (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

70% not edited in a year? That sounds... skewed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'll ever get Jimbo pushing that [1]. the wub "?!" 12:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ugh, the old dictator has lost a lot more than his hair :D ..--Warpath (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to go thru that RfA and remove each and every !vote that objects to the process and not the candidate. Hmm. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Really EVula. And will you also be removing the votes that combine both commentary on the process and the candidate out of interest - or will you simply be giving them no weight? I ask because it would seem you may be one of the few crats who can close this and I'd like your bias out now please.Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The pure process opposes seem more symbolic to me; I find it hard to believe that folks have concluded LHVU should not be an administrator simply because he initiated a reconfirmation RfA, and I wouldn't be surprised if bureaucrats discounted some votes for that reason. Still, I wouldn't go through and strike them at this point. Seems both unnecessary and likely to create far more controversy than leaving them there is prompting. Nathan ^T 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I might venture that if EVula (and his semi-melodramatic "hmm") ventures so far as to start striking votes then his next visit to RFA may not be in the capacity of closing the discussion. Again, EVula, given you are one of the 'crats not to have commented your position please - will you give less weight to comments that indicate displeasure with the process, even if they have additional comments on the candidate. This doesn't seem much to ask. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, totally wasn't my intention to leave you hanging with this; I was just busy with other stuff. :)
The point of the above comment was to act as sort of a "floating the idea" kind of action; to see how people reacted to even the idea of removing them. If I were to close the RfA (called so because I don't feel like bandying about another damn acronym) I would probably disregard any !vote the solely referenced a disapproval in the process; those that opposed based on the grounds that the candidate's mere action of putting himself back up at RfA is grounds for lost faith have, in my opinion, a just argument, although not quite as much as, say, ones referencing the Jimbo diff.
However, while I may have been considering the flat-out removal of the !votes, I ultimately decided not to, primarily because of the massive amount of drama that it would cause (in a couple of different ways). Not worth it.
Also, for what it's worth, I've been a proponent of a de-sysopping system that rests in the hands of the community for a while, and I'm glad to see that there's at least some movement forward on it... even if it is a bit more of a lurch than a graceful step. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The bureaucrats really play no role in this closing actually. If consensus is found for "promotion" (which seems fairly unlikely at this point, I think it's pretty clear that the RfA has a serious lack of consensus right now), we do nothing. And if no consensus is found, the status quo will still apply under the consensus system -- remember, as an dubious out of process non-RfA page with no consensus, nothing will happen unless LHVU personally requests a desysop on Meta -- as well as the lack of a bureaucrat desysop ability. Therefore, I urge whoever closes this not to take the safe or diplomatic route by giving some kind of blessing to the result of this RfA. The only safe call in cases of extreme doubt is no consensus -- which means do nothing.Andre (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Andre, I find your comment to be really strange coming from a bureaucrat. Do you have a view of 'crat discretion and the nature of consensus at RfA that is at odds from normal process? Typically, 80% is clear consensus to promote in an RfA... but you say its "pretty clear that the RfA has a serious lack of consensus." Can you explain what makes you say that, and if you would close a normal RfA in this position as fail? Nathan ^T 13:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Resysop

Hello. As per [2] and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias#Aitias.27s_suspension_confirmed I am asking for the return of my sysop flag. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 17:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 17:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Aitias // discussion 17:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering

The term 'de-sysop' is sometimes bandied about, and I was curious - is there documentation on what sorts of instances trigger the process? What is the actual process? Is it written down anywhere? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DESYSOP? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't give any process other than "voluntary resignation", "take it to Arbcom" or "Jimbo's personal whim"… – iridescent 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For ArbCom's permissions removal policy see here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are essentially four ways to get de-sysopped, though I'm not sure if it's written anywhere concretely.

1. Self-request at Meta (sometimes a self-request locally works, too);
2. Emergency removal by a steward (for odd account behavior, generally);
3. Removal by the Arbitration Committee (the Committee is empowered by the stewards to request access rights changes for any user at Meta);
4. Jimmy (who arbitrarily removes rights, generally for egregious behavior).

--MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A slight error there I think. Should say:

4. Jimmy (who arbitrarily removes rights).

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

He just might remove your right to edit for that ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd just have to use one of my sleeper accounts, one of which I think is very close to being a good RfA candidate.</joke> --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using humor; the bureaucrat noticeboard is for serious business only, no silliness. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been upset for a while I can't get my Malleus Fatuorum account through RFA, hence my use of sleepers. Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Who was being silly? Perhaps it wasn't a joke after all. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What was the sock of yours that I was supposed to be coaching... James Blood?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• To Arcayne: Wikipedia:Former administrators might be what you're looking for. AGK 14:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Flying Toaster RfA

I have already raised this issue here, but was told this venue was more appropriate.

I have a concern about this RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2). The vote was narrow, and the issue of content creation was important. My specific concern is that the candidate made claims about '156 articles created' in an intendedly persuasive way to influence the outcome ([3], [4], User:FlyingToaster/created.

I have looked at many of these articles, and I find that as well as a significant number of disambiguation pages, a large number of the 'articles' are plagiarised directly from internet sources. Most or all of the 40-odd articles on Roumanian generals are plagiarised from a single source. Many of the more substantial-seeming articles are directly plagiarised, without any modification of phrasing or order or other softening. One article was already plagiarised and was only wikified (extensively) by the candidate. But why did she not spot this, given it was obviously so? This shows a serious lack of judgment in a person who is supposedly chosen for just that quality.

I want to know if all of those who supported this RfA would still do so, if shown full evidence of the plagiarism, which was clearly performed in an attempt to gain credentials. If the election were rerun, would we get the same result?

Here are the articles I noticed.

• Cluster-weighted_modeling lifted from this abstract: [5] O:"Cluster-weighted modeling (CWM) is a versatile inference algorithm". W:"It is recognized as a versatile inference algorithm ". Original: "Each cluster is localized to a Gaussian input region and possesses its own trainable local model". Wikipedia "Each cluster in CWM is localized to a Gaussian input region, and this contains its own trainable local model". Also from another paper here [6] and Danil and Feldkamp [7] ("a feedforward layered network might be preferred").
• Over 40 articles directly copied from a single internet source on Romanian generals. E.g.
  • Alexandru Batcu: "Alexandru Batcu (1892–1964) was a Romanian Brigadier-General during World War II. From 1941 to 1943, he served as Commanding Officer 28th Fortress Regiment. He was then a Prefect of Dubasari in 1943. In 1944, he began as a Prefect of Tiraspol, then became a General Officer Commanding 5th Division, and finally a General Officer Commanding 5th Training Division. He was Assistant Commandant of Bucharest in 1944, Commandant of Bucharest in 1945, and retired in 1946."
  • Original "1941 - 1943Commanding Officer 28th Fortress Regiment, 1943 - 1944Prefect of Dubasari, 1944 Prefect of Tiraspol, 1944 General Officer Commanding 5th Division, 1944 General Officer Commanding 5th Training Division, 1944 - 1945Assistant Commandant of Bucharest, 1945 Commandant of Bucharest, 1946 Retired [8]
• Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation, lifted verbatim from another site – lead, history, Acquisition of the buildings
• Homeokinetics has already been deleted for possible copyvio.
• Momentum flux is a copyvio from here.
  • "It can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stresses. For waves, momentum flux is related to mountain wave drag", the source says "Momentum flux can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stress. For waves, it is related to mountain wave drag."
• Radiative flux draws heavily from an article from the journal Applied Optics, and also raises my concern about taking material from abstracts, which is not good practice.
• There is also some copying at Chemical flux
• One of the sources for Volumetric flux seems to be a blog advertising a software program called "Unit Converter EX" which does various unit conversions. This is not good practice.

Peter Damian (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• The RFA was charactorised by Flying Toaster's supporters hectoring (and continuing to do so) the opposition. This hectoring was often "justified" by mention of her prolific content creation, and claims that her pages created numbered over 100. The oposition centred its opposes on her lack of real content and mainspace edits. I looked at several of the pages cited as hers and was struck by their, in my view, poor standard; looking for copyright violation never occurred to me. What was clear was that the candidate had little idea of Wikipedia and its ways and protocols. Yet 100 people miraculously appeared and supported, something I find very strange indeed. My view is that Toaster should do the honourable, and simple, thing and resign the tools, thus avoiding a damaging and embarassing investigation. She should then be given a timescale to clean up the pages before thay are deleted. I don't see the need for punitive sanctions for what appears to simple ignorance of Wikipedia laws and standards. I don't think it unreasonable for a certain knowledge of thse things to be acquited before Admin tools are granted. Giano (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering but do you think that posting the same statement here and on ANI (in multiple threads there) is helpful? I think it might look as if you have a crusader-mentality against this user, unlikely to be helpful in convincing people that there was a mistake. If you want to suggest FT to resign, you should really tell this to her personally, imho. And if you think the RFA's consensus was incorrectly judged, maybe we should allow the closing crat to offer his reasons before we can really discuss anything? Regards SoWhy 08:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is outrageous. Yet another indication of how low the English wikipedia has fallen. To say that the vote was "narrow" is... a very mild way of putting it. I expect the closing bcrat to resign. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see this as being the bureaucrats' fault, it's not their job to pick through all the evidence of a candidate's suitability. This seems more like a failing of the wider community. Although I hope the 'crats had the good sense to discount such supports as "We need more good looking admins for WikiMania" and "appears to have the correct enemies". the wub "?!" 08:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a good call by the closing crat. The arguments given by the opposers were weak, it just didnt seem worth addressing them at lenght with all the complaints of "badgering". Plus there was almost bang on 80% support! And that was after what was effectively determined if rather feeble negative canvassing - and yes I do have evidence which Id prefer not to present, but will do if pressed! FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to quote Scott MacDonald from the RfA - "Opposes seem mainly to be petty political score settling based on her support of someone who'd pissed off some powerful people - wikipolitics at it worst." It sums it up nicely actually. Now we have calls for FT and Anon Diss to resign??? Cut it out. If there is a problem with FT's articles then pop over to her talk page and tell her what they are so she can fix them. Moaning about it here solves nothing. FT is very responsive and if there is some inappropriate paraphrasing (I wouldn't call it outright plagiarism) then she will fix it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The matter of content work was certainly focal in this RfA – many opposed because of it, and it formed the crux of the oppositional argument. However, the opposition mentioned a lack of content work, rather than plagiarism issues; lack of content work (which the RfA centred on) is different to copy-violative content work (which was not even mentioned in the RfA). Tying the two together like that is, in my view, not presenting the RfA for what it was. Now, if the plagiarism issue had been discovered while the RfA was in progress, a different outcome may have been the product; however, speculation doesn't solve anything.

In my view, to assert that FT deliberately and carefully perpetrated a misrepresentation to influence the RfA is assuming bad faith on the part of the candidate. If we assume that FT genuinely believed her articles were not problematic, it does not seem so unreasonable that she should be proud of the figure of "156" and should wish to make a note of it on the RfA. The claim that she "made claims about '156 articles created' in an intendedly persuasive way to influence the outcome" seems rather cynical to me.

These allegations are a concern, and they require proper attention. We have avenues for that, and what seems to be productive discussion to the end of solving the problem has been generated at ANI. However – and I re-iterate – this problem is not germane to the RfA as it was. It would most certainly have been germane to the RfA if the information had been exposed during the candidacy; this is unquestionable, and, even now, the implications here are substantial. Unfortunately (and it is very unfortunate) the problem was only identified after the closure. I do not make this point in some attempt to fop off the concern with a technicality, or to detachedly defend my closure. I mean only to call attention to what actually took place during the RfA and why a distinction must be drawn between the issues of the opposition in the RfA and the issues that have arisen shortly afterward. In short, I take this position: these matters need to be looked into and addressed promptly, but to draw a connection with the RfA itself – other than to consider whether these problems may have affected support and oppose trends – is not accurately interpreting the arguments that underscored the discussion.

For now, all we can do is work with the present. Developments may yet come in the situation as further inquest into the articles in question is undertaken. The most important thing right now is to fix the articles and remove the plagiarism. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ECx4 Perhaps if the evidence was provided during the RfA things might have turned out differently? I swear, there was a week to raise this issue, instead most of the opposes were fairly weak. And by weak, I mean they didn't provide evidence. Most of them were along the lines of IDONTLIKEIT. As for the 'crat to resign? Give me a break, the final tally was about 80% in support. The opposes didn't make a concrete oppose rationale. I think I have a reputation as being a hard nose when evaluating candidates---I oppose a lot more than I support. But when the oppose rationale that is being cited by many is A very poor idea. This editor is naive, uniformed and has an appalling record regarding content. One wonders why these people come here, any fool can sit and talk all day, and many do. That doesn't speak to the strength of the opposes. Sorry Giano, that rationale looks more personal and unsupported. Even Peter who provides the links above, provided us with the compelling argument of per reasons above, mainly no visible content contribution. You have to get to !vote 19 before any of the opposes provided a link and oppose 31 before anybody actually started citing some facts. None of the other !votes made a case, they just cited an opinion. If you want people to listen to you, do more than say "I don't like it." Give reasons backed by facts, not opinions. If you have reasons, such as Peter's above, provide it DURING the RfA. Might it have swayed the outcome? Very likely, but that is why we have a 7 day period, not 1 day. Sheesh.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying because this came to light a little too late, it should be ignored in regard to whether she's suitable to have the tools? Rubbish. Every action should be taken into account, that's why people are desysoped. Plagiarism, though unintentional, demonstrates a lack of understanding of copyright and judgement that would not be expected of someone with the power to delete. And yet because the evidence has been found a day after the RfA was closed it's ok? I don't think it should matter how long an editor has been an admin, if they misunderstand an important policy on such a basic level they shouldn't have the tools. Most don't know the ins and outs of copyright, but most know that you can't copy someone else's work onto wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If I sound like that, I think it's a tragedy. It's not what I meant at all, and I tried to enforce that point in my comment. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You said "this problem is not germane to the RfA as it was. It would most certainly have been germane to the RfA if the information had been exposed during the candidacy". Are you saying that information that comes to light after an election has been closed is not relevant ('germane') to the election, or to the election process? My view is that if a blatantly unsuitable candidate is chosen as the result of a certain process, then that process itself should be examined. Perhaps you are not to blame (I'm not saying you are). But the process certainly is. And as the person who is unquestionably responsible for the process, I think you should be accepting a little more responsibility for it than you appear to be doing. Peter Damian (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The person elected should be examined. Why should the process be examined? It's finished now, and no mention was even made of these issues in the RfA. That fact is unfortunate – very unfortunate, given how recent the RfA is. But the RfA is over now, and the candidate was promoted. If the adminship of FT is to be called into question for issues that are months old, it really makes no difference whether she was promoted a week ago or six months ago. Furthermore, why is the process to blame? No-one who participated in the process did anything wrong; people supported and opposed with their individual rationales, none of which gave any mention to this copyright problem. With regard to my responsibility: I accept responsibility for my closure, and I also stand by that closure, fully. My task as a bureaucrat is to evaluate consensus as presented in elections by participants. However, for the issues of plagiarism and the impacts these issues are having on FT's new adminship I do not accept responsibility; and I think that's fairly reasonable. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Peter Damian means that the RfA voters should check contributions more carefully before voting. I agree with you that the RfA was closed just fine. If there was anything wrong (I am not sure) it was how people choose their votes, not how you assessed consensus. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, AD, but the issue was indeed brought up during the RFA. Gimmetrow 14:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where? –xeno ^talk 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My oppose, for instance. I had been editing some of the articles and saw substantial verbal similarities with sources. I expected the "feedback" from DYK to be about this. Gimmetrow 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your oppose said nothing at all about plagiarism or similarity to sources. –xeno ^talk 18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Quite a few misconceptions introduced here. FTs creation of 156 articles wasn't even mentioned until 17 May, by which time she already had over 100 support votes. No one in the RFA's support sections directly gave article creation as a reason for supporting - instead folk point to her improved janitorial work such as CSD tagging plus AIV and UAA reports. Or to FTs steady composures plus friendly and helpful nature. At best article creation can be seen as a factor in about 5 votes, and thats if you construe comments like "constructive contributions" as referring to article creation and not said janitoring. There's a contingent among the opposers who seem to think fine content creation skills are essential for an admin – but on this doesn't appear to be the majority view in the community. In general folk are happy to promote admins on the bases that they are likely to be good with a mop and bucket, and that they wont abuse the tools. For myself it was clear FT is probably still some way from developing into a fine stylist from this, supplied by Editor Plutonium27. Even that piece of evidence points to FTs helpful nature as the intial version was clearly her own work and she went to a lot of trouble to research an article requested by another.

• As for plagiarism , I dont think this was anywhere near as extensive as implied, and anyway we're encouraged to be relatively faithful to the sources, so its an understanable mistake for a fairly new editor. From the examples I've looked at only Glengree is a clear cut case, and I dont see any thing morally wrong with representing a respectable and essentially charitable institution in its own words. Granted it shows FT was at that time not fully aware of applicable policy. But we're encouraged to jump in and learn as we go, and when one does look at either the guidelines themselves or policy related discussion on talk pages the emphasis is much more on avoiding OR and Synth – almost the reverse of avoiding plagiarism! Anyway FT gives no indication she's likely to use her admin status to throw her weight around in content disputes, rather she seems keen to serve the community in areas where she has a solid understanding of policy. Also she responds very well to constructive criticism.
• Im very much hoping this complaint will be put to bed by an early closure, as hopefully crats will agree FT is a fine candidate strongly endorsed by the community. In case it does go the distance its probably fair to say I have evidence that suggests extensive foul play by some in the opposing camp, which I would rather not present unless neccessary. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you have "evidence" put your money where your mouth is! Giano (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As you wish Gianno. You posted on both the admin board and your well watched talk page , where you made it very clear you considered it would be a cyber tragedy if FT was promoted. Ostensibly you were complaining about IRC in general , but in both cases you linked to the then ongoing RFA and its notable you archived the discussion a few hours after the RFA was closed. Now this may not have been your intention, but given the fact youre admired by many for your extensive and rather exquisite creations , the effect will have been to inevitably channel editors to the RFA , with a deposition to be hostile. This indeed seems to have been what happened , given the then apparently flimsy pretexts for many of the opposes. Theres a lot more I could say, but I try not to say anything negative unless its necessary and Id guess theres now little chance of the decision being reversed. I'll be back to see how this had played out this evening!

And this strategy was successful - several opposes didn't even bother hide their slavish copying of Giano [9], [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's it - is it - the evidence of foul play? Funny how all I do is above board and on Wiki - isn't it? Don't bother to apolgise they are two a penny from Toaster's supporters - that is why I archived my page when the RFA finished - far from foul play. Giano (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Very honest of you to confirm your posts were an attempt to influence the RFA - thats canvassing and you should try to avoid it in future, per WP:CANVASS. And there's no danger of an apology as my comments were fair and not needlessly insulting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, have you a clue what you are talking about, have you spent too long on IRC to know what is going on here? Here are just two of the many hectoring responses from Toaster's supporters to the opposers. The RFA was flawed, it was wrong, it was a tissue of misleading statements from Toaster and her supporters - maybe knowingly, maybe not - that is not the point. The point is the community was misled and she picked up a 100 automatic votes from IRC. Just look at this support [11], and as for this now laughable edit [12] hectoring an oppose voter. And this hectoring response to an oppose, clearly shows the voters complete ignorance of the candidate's work [13]. Why the Crats allowed this RFA to continue is a complete mystery that needs to be explained. Then of course, we have William M Connolley's supporting vote [14], exemplifying all we have come to realise about Admins and these matters. Looking at all the supports 9to many to diff) just look at the comments on her edits and contributions. Yes, I think a strong rebuke to the closing Crat is called for - perhaps even resignation. Even the barn stars she handed out to her supporters have been deleted as copyvio. I'm afraid Ryan, your beloved IRC may rubber stamp RFAs, but don't expect the community to like it. I suggest you take a message back with you: "Do some spade work and learn what Wikipedia is about before inflicting yourself as Admin's on the rest of us." Giano (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is IRC the issue or the article contributions? Giano, you've swapped and back on this issue the last few days, focusing first on the IRC issue and it looks like you are using this to go back on your IRC complaints. If IRC is the issue to you, focus on that, but somewhere else and don't try to spoil this well for that reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously both. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the issues for not Adminning Toaster are now too many to list, but don't worry I doubt a Crat will back down, I doubt Toaster will resign and I doubt IRC will change. Toaster joins a long list of such worthy Admins. Giano (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thought I'd put in my .02 FWIW. Didn't participate in the RfA, and hadn't heard of the candidate until now. I reviewed the RfA and the points raised above.
  • The points brought up by Peter Damian are worrisome. I disagree with those above who are dismissing the issue of copyvio.
  • There is a precedent on bureaucrat discretion on close RfAs and as such I see no fault with the bureaucrat's decision to promote given the information available at the time. I do not think the candidate had an intention to mislead !voters with the "created" list.
  • Bureaucrats cannot de-sysop (unless things have changed). I do not think ongoing discussion at WP:BN (or ANI for that matter) can provide a solution.
  • While I am sure that User:FlyingToaster is hardworking, nice, and friendly, I strongly believe that the ability to judge what content is appropriate for an encyclopedia is the foremost role of an administrator here. The recent copyvios, even if unintentional by User:FlyingToaster, bring into question this candidate's suitability for adminship. Understanding copyright violation is essential for a number of admin functions: deletions, AfD closures, even protections, etc. I think a de-sysop should be considered and the only body with that authority is ArbCom (correct me if I am wrong). I would support having this brought there -- Samir 09:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As Giano has now described as laughable my request for him to furnish diffs to explain his critique of the candidate contributions, I would just like to make the point that if his intent had been to persuade me to oppose this candidate during the RFA it would have been better to have disclosed why he regarded the candidates contributions as appalling during the RFA rather than after it. For those not familiar with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2 it was a new low for the RFA process. Giano's oppose was one of the first and my request for diffs is at the end of the thread that it started. (full disclosure, I took one peek at IRC some weeks ago and have not returned there, but see no reason to oppose those who use it). Also anyone who can advise me as to how my request for diffs could have been expressed in a politer less hectoring way is welcome to tell me by email or on my talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 09:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I thought the way I did it was fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So you are happy for an Admin to copy paste other peoples work onto wikipedia, and claim it as her own. If that's not naive then it's criminal - which do you prefer? The naivity I was referring to at the time concerned her posts elsewhere. It is not your place to hector voters on an RFA, and not an opposers duty to respond to you. Please remember that in future. You will be blaming me because you all appear very foolish soon. Giano (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Samir sums it up pretty well. ArbCom is -> thattaway, (though the user's talk page is probably a much better starting place) as Crats do not currently have community consensus for desysopping, even if we agreed wholeheartedly with the arguments in favour of it. Changing that consensus is a whole other conversation and should not be conflated with this one. This is also not the appropriate forum for discussing perceived bad behaviour at the RfA, unless users are requesting that Crats take action in future RfAs against any generic (ie not specific to user) behaviour types: again, this may also be something that would require new consensus, but also may not, and indeed may not need specifically Crat involvement. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Like Samir, I did not participate in the FT RFA, and like Samir I am troubled by the evidence of copyright violations. Best outcome, in my opinion, would be for Flying Toaster to resign admin status voluntarily and reapply in >3 months.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Low hopes of getting through without an edit conflict, but: 1) a person needs to set him/herself apart from editors to be apart from editors as an administrator. 2) Setting apart by content knowledge is one thing, and apart by dispute resolution is another. Setting apart by button pushing or tags is not an option, since that is common, we hope, to all editors. Running a bot is not one, as that, too, should be common. Being friendly is not one, as that, too, should be common if "civility is a policy" and all that rot. 3) This candidate's dispute resolution credentials were impugned earlier in the previous RFA. The article knowledge was all that was left that was licit for a bureaucrat to exercise discretion on. Article creation, without copyvio, was poor, as Giano argued, and now appears to have been even worse -- in violation of core principles. All of the CSD's the candidate had been tagging should, apparently, have included many of her own. 4) Discretion had to weigh whether the support arguments were based on a quality that showed a good administrator or a popular person, and whether the oppose arguments were about a person's lack of qualification or dislike. 5) Ryan can see into the heart of hearts of all oppose arguments and dismiss all their words, but the closing 'crat shouldn't. Were the arguments based on qualifications for an administrator or "why not?" Were the arguments against based on "bad person" or "no qualifications?" Indeed, as is appropriate for this venue, the crat made a very bad call. This has nothing to do with the candidate, everything to do with the RFA. Geogre (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the crat acted based upon the evidence and arguments provided at the time of the close. THere is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the crat closed this RfA. The arguments at the time of close were all unsubstantiated opinion. The only person to provide a solid reason, backed with dif's was Gimmetrow at oppose number 31. About 80% of the people supported. The RfA was open for a week and the opposers failed to provide ANY reason other than supposition and opinion. If the evidence provided a DAY after the RFA were presented during the RfA the 'crat might have extended the RfA... but if there was any failure here, it was on the part of those people who opposed for failing to provide a convincing argument. For failing to provide any links to support allegations. A.D. could not have based his decision based upon evidence not provided. It is now too late to belly ache here---based upon the evidence provided during the RfA the RfA was closed properly.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No George, the candidates credentials were not impugned at the previous RFA! I take it youre referring to her support for neuro – as an occasional Telegraph blogger and someone whos contributed to the print version I took an interest in that. It seems neuro gave an explanation for why his admittedly regrettable and untrue contributions to the Telegraph blog were not lies. And anyway theres no good reason why FT should have know all the details. The crat made a good closing call and no matter how many walls of text you guys post that fact isn't going to be obscured! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian and others: Why didn't you raise these concerns during the RfA? It is not not 'crats job to go through the candidates article contributions. Much of the opposition during the RfA was more like "hangs out with the crowd that my faction is opposed to". --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I do check articles showcased in an RfA for general quality, and I did in this case (hence my comments at RfA). I do not normally check for plagiarism, partly because it is quite difficult unless glaringly obvious, but mostly because I take it on trust that no one is going to showcase such material. In this case (albeit too late) I had nagging doubts and checked. Should I have to be doing that? I don't think so. Peter Damian (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case there was perhaps only a single article which was an outright copy. So are you saying as well as weighing the arguments the crat should have carefully checked a good proportion of the new articles to see if they were derivative – potentially a very time-consuming task? Or are you saying the crat should have Googled extracts from each single article? Especially as there were clearly several determined and highly experienced editors in the oppose section, who might reasonably have been expected to at least hint at any issues, I don't think either check would have been a good use of the crats time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was answering the question about why I didn't raise these concerns during the RfA. I don't have a view about whose job it is to do what. I do have a view that in situations where a glaringly unsuitable candidate happens to be chosen by means of a certain process, then that process should be carefully re-examined. The problem can be resolved by less depending on trust. Or by accepting that much depends on trust, and also accepting the resignation of the candidate. That is how it works in RL. Have you been watching the news in the UK recently? Peter Damian (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no comparison between the speakers resignation and the absurd suggestion that FT should follow suit. The speaker clearly ought to have known he was doing wrong, even if he justified it to himself by saying its common practice. Theres no reason not to think FT was innocent of intentionally doing wrong. The narrow golden path between OR / synth and plagiarism you guys seem to exspect contributors to tread hasn’t been well defined in any guideline Im aware of. The overwhelming emphases in most discussions seems to be to avoid OR , and the clearest way to do that is to be faithful to the sources. Some good will come of this if it leads to the need to avoid being too derivative being made clearer. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Feyd staes above that: "FTs creation of 156 articles wasn't even mentioned until 17 May", this is incorrect; it was mentioned (well as 155) on 11 May. [15]. Yes - out of her own mouth! The arguements for keeping this "admin" aew bwcoming less plausible by the moment. If she does not even undertstand the rudest elemetary detail about our article creation and content, how on earth can she be an Admin? even by the realms of Wikipedia this is now becoming farcical. Giano (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, please, Giano, will you give it a rest? We all know that you don't want FT to be an admin. Repeating it is completely un-necessary, and is really unfair to FT, who's got to wade through all this petty abuse. Not everyone on Wikipedia is conspiring to bring it down, not everyone on IRC is conspiring to bring it down. We've read your points, and I would appreciate it if you would hold back until FT's had a chance to make a response. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again Giano, what I said was strictly correct. Granted I perhaps should have searched more careful than simply checking for "156" , but the central point remains. Lack of content didn't become central to the debate until 17 May, before that it was linger concerns over her much improved tagging, Telegraph Gate and more prominently IRC Cabal. As stated the vast majority of support did not give her creative contributions as a reason – a quick skim of the rFA is all it takes to verify this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am merely correcting yet another untruth misleading statement from one of her supporters. I know it is hard for you all to lose face in this way, bur it can't be helped. So stop moaning, this matter is not going to go away. Giano (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) When you say, "...it is hard for you all to lose face in this way..." I would point out that I wasn't involved in the FlyingToaster RfA, and have never interacted with FT in any way. I am simply a neutral observer, and my neutral observation is that we have taken your point (FT should be desysopped) on board, and further repetition, acid statements, bickering, allegations of a cabal, demands that IRC be shut down - and that list is not exahustive - is un-necessary, incivil, TLDR and generally corrosive, and I urge you to stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• FeydHuxtable, even if one article is an outright copy, the editor who created it shouldn't be allowed to become an admin. We take copyright violations very seriously. Copyright violations do a serious damage to the credibility of WP. If I had known about copyright violation in Momentum flux, I wouldn't have supported FT. RFAs of good article writers like Wisdom89, Realist2, Ironholds, and Malleus Fatuorum failed because of things that has nothing to do with article writing. We are told by many senior admins that article writing and adminship are two different jobs. I disagree. WP is an encyclopedia. Any individual, who writes good article, knows what should be included and what should be erased from the encyclopedia, and doesn't take part in any unethical activities should become an admin. I don't think we can blame Anonymous Dessident for passing FT's RFA. Many editors, including me, supported her RFA. I support FT, but now I don't think she is ready for adminship. But, she has become an admin. I strongly advice her to revise WP policies, and use the admin tools only after some time. AdjustShift (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• I would just like to go on record as saying that any call for the closing bureaucrat's head or bit or whatever is absolutely ludicrous. We execute consensus; it's the community's responsibility, not the closing bureaucrat's, to judge the candidate. The last time the 'crat used their judgement on the candidate, people were up in arms; clearly, the community does not want us to do anything but gauge consensus (which I'm fine with; I think that's all we should be doing anyway). There was consensus to promote FT at the time of promotion, regardless of what has happened since then; on our end, everything went exactly as it should. But now that the shit has hit the fan after the RfA has closed, it's no longer the community's responsibility, but ours? No thank you, that's failing to take responsibility in the worst way possible. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  Well said. We ask the crats to make a determination based on what was in the RFA, not to launch their own investigation or substitute their own judgment. We can't have it both ways. –xeno ^talk 14:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  I for one was only up in arms about the Ryulong incident because Raul obviously got the wrong answer. He promoted his buddy over reasonable and substantial objections, which no crat should ever do. Only now, much later, is this problem finally getting corrected. Back to the FT case at hand.. personally, since the tide was turning more toward opposition, I'd see no problem with the crat having extended this RFA for, say, another week, to make sure relevant issues come out. Getting it right is more important than getting it fast. Friday (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll echo EVula's sentiments - I'm trying (I've left a note on Geogre's talk page) but I can't see anything grievously wrong in the closure of the RfA. To my mind, this makes me think of the infamous Giggy 3 RfA, except the issues really came out after closure, not shortly before. This case is worth remembering the next time someone suggests we shorten the standard length of RfAs, or ones that are "obviously passing" etc. It would have been better if the issues had been brought up and discussed before it closed and we could have seen how consensus was affected (it may have passed, regardless). With the RfA closed, properly, this is no longer a matter for the Bureaucrats under current policy and consensus. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• There are many famous incidents of people passing RfA after lying. I wont name names because it is unnecessary and already known. Peter is doing this for whatever reason, but there isn't a legitimate reason. If he had a legitimate reason, he would have gone to the copyright noticeboard. Instead, we have a hodge podge of thrown together terms along with demands that are completely disconnected. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Add because Peter seems unable to point out actual copyright problems. For Cluster-weighted_modeling, the sentences are built off of technical terms which cannot be copyrighted by anyone. Alexandru Batcu year and title cannot be copyrighted. Then we have obvious citations next to the material which does not mean that it is a -copyright- violation, just a lack of quoting violation which is part of -plagarism-, a catchall term for anything that is less than a 100% correctly cited use. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahem: "Cluster-weighted modeling (CWM) is a versatile inference algorithm". The word 'versatile' is not a technical term. It is a value judgment that is appropriate in the abstract of a tehnical paper, but not in an encyclopedia. That fact alone suggests that FT did not know what she was doing. I can give you other examples if you want. Peter Damian (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to... you? The guy who happens to be causing a fit over this because one of the people at FT's RfA discussing opposes was a guy who blocked you? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Peter, you do know that we have a rule against point violations, right? You can end your disruption now, unless you really do want to be blocked for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, take a seat. Since when have you been in a position to threaten someone with a block? You're not an admin and you're more disruptive that anyone in this discussion. So who, exactly, do you plan to convince to block Peter, and what, precisely, is the block to be for? لennavecia 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't block someone, therefore, there is no threat. And yet you put both up there knowing this. Then you accuse me of disruption. Seems like a blatant misstruth as your above entry has would be more disruptive than most in this topic. So, why do you hate FlyingToaster? Did she upset you with all of your involvement with her at IRC? Did you not like the fact that she was friends with Neuro, who had problems with Giano? Did you simply follow the Wikipedia Review crowd that Peter et al. linked to these threads? It is rather obvious that Peter doesn't like Connolley's involvement, especially after Peter being blocked. But why are you involved? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Ottava. Now you're being ridiculous. Cut it out. I don't "hate" FT. I have no problem with her. I like chatting with her in IRC, I like her responses to people on WR, and I think she's a cool chick. I have issues with a few of her articles, and that has nothing to do with her as a person. Stop trolling, Ottava. I've got better things to do with my time than open a discussion about you and your disruptive whining and trolling. لennavecia 18:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem with her? Hmm - "Deleted as a copyright violation. Haha.", mocking about a barnstar she gave out as being deleted. Definitely something done by one who is 100% being objective. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

Maybe everyone should calm down until FT actually responds to these allegations, eh? Skinny87 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And could we also try to avoid repetition? A lot of what certain users are saying (naming no names) has already been said, often by themselves. It's only necessary to make points once. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Has there been a single page created to look in detail into each of the potential problem pages? If not, that's the first thing that should be done. Here on WP:BN isn't the place, and while some of the above evidence is concerning, at least one is just stating facts from a source, which isn't copyrightable and thus if it is cited as a reference it's not blatant plagiarism. The first sentence in the Cluster-weighted_modeling example above falls in that category. It would be a better defense against plagiarism in the case of the Romanian generals for example to have another source to back up the facts and not to have used all of the exact wording that was there. Sythesizing two sources would probably have worked. As for desysopping, I believe there may even be long long past precedent for reversing a decision and then having the bcrats ask a steward to remove the flag. Though it could be said that it's so long past that it is not current consensus. But as others have mentioned that is putting the cart before the horse if there isn't a detailed analysis of each of the articles in question. - Taxman ^Talk 13:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the precedent you are talking about is Grunt's RFB close by Ugen64 (see this), where Cecropia and a couple other crats asked steward-crat Angela to reverse Ugen's promotion, which steward Anthere then did. But given its age and circumstances, I don't think any part of it would apply here. MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears AGF is out of fashion, leaving me with last year's standards. Up til now I've kept my mouth shut no matter how many times I've seen it, but the ABF assertion that "Opposes seem mainly to be petty political score settling" is offensive and accusatorty, with no evidence or proof offered. I'm going to start templating some people if they don't stop repeating it. Puppy is a bit disappiointed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• WMC has already put forth enough evidence on the matter, but it seems obvious that Giano opposed over Neurolysis, and others agreed with Giano, which is the very definition of politics. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting the right answer is important

All this stuff about crats having their hands tied is pure nonsense. Will this fiasco finally convince the crats that they're allowed to use their judgement and not just count votes? This idea isn't firmly traditional, but it's certainly long overdue. Crats, please please please, take responsibility for getting the right answer. If you were only supposed to count votes, we'd have a bot closing RFAs instead of you. We have humans doing it for a reason- please make liberal use of your human judgement. The community is, well.. you've seen how people vote, right? The voters as a whole are not very competent to do this job. Help us all out and provide the guidance this proceess needs. Friday (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this requires a carefully-drafted proposal on a well-publicised sub page, which the community can then discuss. I can't speak for other Crats, but I'm happy to follow whatever the community tells us to do with all and any of our tools, whether they wish us to have stronger ones, weaker ones or whatever. I may have an opinion as to whether any specific change is wise or not, but once consensus is clear... NB To avoid incessant arguments and edit-warring, it may be worth ensuring said sub page puts the arguments for both sides of the coin before discussion opens. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have more faith in Wikipedia's alleged decision-making process than I do, but you'll never see a clear consensus for this. Hell, I don't believe for a minute that you can see a clear consensus for what crats do right now. Just start doing the right thing. It'll work itself out. Friday (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't work either. Taken to its logical extreme, I could read the arguments, decide whether I agree with them and then basically ignore the community by making my own decision. I could decide that 50 or 60 or 100 opposing editors have got it all wrong and so and so would make a fine admin. (I recognise I'm strawmanning here, btw!) Crats get elected because the community works out the kind of people who see consensus and respond to it, even if it goes against the Crat's personal opinion. And here I am. The evidence for that being what the community wants is all over the place, most particularly in every RfB, especially failed ones, and in the response to the Ryulong RfA (and others). I think you're probably right that widening the Crat discretion is a doomed proposal, but I disagree on the reasons for it being doomed - I think it'd fail because it's very hard to find limits to it that people (Crats included!) could feel comfortable with. But I could be wrong - I'd be interested to see a proposal. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was making the argument that our hands are tied. If damning evidence came to light prior to the RfA closure, that's something totally different; that'd warrant an extension on the RfA, closing it outside of normal consensus, or whatever. However, when stuff happens after the RfA? There's no way we can be held responsible for that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c x3) Which oppose arguments do you think the crat should have given more weight? Or do you think he should have ignored the community discussion and made his own investigation instead? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The current responsibility of a bureaucrat is to weigh consensus as it exists at the close of the RFA. They are not currently charged with vetting the candidate themselves. The problem with the candidate not being thoroughly vetted during the RFA lies solely on the community's shoulders and the closing bureaucrat is not responsible if the community leans the (perhaps) wrong way. Useight (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Since bureaucrats can't deadmin, and there wasn't a blatant mistake by AD as the allegations regarding copyright didn't emerge until after the RfA was closed, the discussion here is generating more heat than light. Rather than case aspersions on the crats, what we should be doing is work out what the next step is. If this is the wrong forum and so is ANI, and there is no discussion on WT:RfA, is ARBCOM the next step? The important question is can someone who doesn't understand the basics of something as important as copyright really have the trust of the community? Nev1 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed an important question Nev. But a prior one should be does FT really fail to understand copyright? Any historical mistakes dont necessarily reflect her current understanding. Its probably worth pointing out that our three core content policies seem to support staying close to the sources just as FT did. neutral point of view doesnt have much to say about copyright. No original research says:

“ Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. ”

Im not seeing any examples where FT failed to provide a citation to her source. What she did do is rephrase some lines from a source. verifiability says:

“ Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing ”

So from what Im seeing with articles folk are making a big deal of like Momentum flux the fault is in one of two places - 1) our policies for not being clear enough or 2) the copyright alarmists. Sorry for belabouring the point, but it seemed it had already been clearly made by Ottava and others so Im trying to spell it out. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM. "Even if a source is cited, plagiarism also occurs when text is directly copied without proper attribution or insufficiently adapted into original language. When the source is copyrighted, this kind of plagiarism will probably also represent a copyright concern." and " A very basic, plain-spoken definition [of plagiarism] is: "If you didn't think of it and write it all on your own, and you didn't cite (or write down) the sources where you found the ideas or words, it's probably plagiarism." Peter Damian (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere :-) If that guidelines a big deal, it should probably be at least linked to from one of our core policies. This is the first I've heard of it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagarism is quite different from Copyright and is a concern that is -correctable- and not a problem when a user corrects it. Not having the right author for a citation can be considered plagarism. So, you can end your campaign now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So plagiarism is OK then? I stand corrected. A lot of people here seem to think otherwise, though. Who am I to say. Peter Damian (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how there were citations after, this was a failure in properly quoting. That makes it 100% acceptable as it was a -mistake- and easily corrected. We do not block people who do this, nor do we do anything except discuss with them -directly- or take it to the CN noticeboard, and then have the matter corrected. Seeing as how I was one of the main people cleaning up the plagarism problems at DYK, I think I have a strong grounds on saying how we deal with it around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk rubbish Ottava. The guideline says ""Even if a source is cited, plagiarism also occurs when text is directly copied without proper attribution or insufficiently adapted into original language." This was a clear case of that. Peter Damian (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps you meant the failure was to supply quotation marks? Dear boy, that's what plagiarism is. Get a grip. Peter Damian (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter, reread. I already stated that it was -plagarism-. However, you are confusing the problems of copyright with that of plagarism. Plagarism is a catchall term for improperly cited. We do not block people for this. We block people for major copyright violations. Plagarism is corrected when the citation methods are corrected. I made that clear above multiple times. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No plagiarism is the failure to supply quotation marks Peter Damian (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter, read what I stated above. -Citation- is quotation marks and source of the quotation. Its all there above. I deal with this issue -constantly-. What I am saying is that it is 1) not a copyright violation and therefore not serious enough to block and 2) this is a common mistake, is a mistake, and is easily corrected. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So plagiarism is OK then? So what's all the fuss about eh. Actually if you read my original opening remarks it is clear I was not worried about copyright violation. I was worried about dishonesty verging on fraudulence. And a process that fails to nip this in the bud. Peter Damian (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. See, this is how you are causing a major disruption. The "crime" does not merit any of this. Those like Durova are actually going out, working with the user, and trying to correct the situation. That is how Wikipedia deals with it. There are no lynch mobs needed, no calls for desysopping, nor anything like that. It is a -mistake- and a common -mistake- that is best -corrected-. And the fact that she had a citation at the end proves that it was a -mistake- and not -dishonesty-, so you are overreacting. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant: the dishonesty was in parading these articles at the RfA Peter Damian (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For that to have been an act of dishonesty Peter, FT would have have to have been 1) familiar with WP:plagiarism and 2) cognizant that she'd previously broken it by the trivial mistakes Ottava has pointed out. Now if 1) & 2) were true then surely FT would have been smart enough to fix her simple mistakes before the RFA? The fact she did not clearly indicates she wasn't aware they were mistakes, and therefore was not lying. I hope your mistake is now clear to you Peter and you'll have the honour to withdraw your claim and apologise for needlessly questioning someones sincerity. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-run RFA?

Has anyone tried politely asking FT if they would be prepared to go through RfA a second time, immediately? No dramatic ArbCom or desysopping etc? To my mind, that would be a good and honourable option. There would be an opportunity for all concerns to be adequately discussed (hopefully without too much heat) and a Crat could make a proper assessment of consensus at the end of it. FT would have every right to decline the suggestion, of course. --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this sounds like a good idea, provided that nobody (again, naming no names) is going to express this along the lines of, "It's completely up to FT, but if there's any refusal, then it's ArbCom straight away," which of course leaves no choice whatsoever. I would suggest that a neutral 'crat (such as Dweller) words and delivers the message. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be offline shortly for at least a few hours, but would be happy to do this, or for anyone else to do so. However, I'm aware that in my early days as a Crat I was rightly criticised for jumping in too fast, so I'll wait to see if anyone has a good reason why this would be a bad idea. NB I'm also going to be on well-deserved wikibreak for a few days from about this time tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it is up to FT, but I dont think she should. It would be unneccessary drama and not fair to FT or her supporter. On close inspection none of the pretexts given for questioning FTs promotion seem to have much credibility. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. This has been blown way out of proportion, and we've yet to see solid evidence of abuse. Nether FT nor the closing 'crat are at fault here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree, but I think that the organised vendetta that FT is clearly going to encounter as an admin is going to be more harmful. It's not his/her fault, it's nobody's fault but those muckraking, but they're not going to be easily silenced, I don't expect. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Looking out the window, I can see that the sky is right where it should be. Equally important, the 'Pedia is still up an running. Same as it ever was. Get a grip folks. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite. So long as the sky is still there, and still blue, any kind of behaviour on Wikipedia is OK. Peter Damian (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Whether or not certain behavior is OK on Wikipedia, it certainly isn't worth child-like hysterical reactions. There are specific, focus issues which can be dealt with. This entire thread exists solely to disparage. It is a disgrace, and I urge those pushing it to go IRCoff together and leave the 'Pedia to sort itself out, as it inevitably will over such a minor, and now easily policed infraction. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • What is a disgrace? Peter Damian (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The logic you employed in opening the thread to begin with. "Flawed" would be a description that gives said logic far more credit than it is worth. The community failed to notice something that, quite frankly, the community is built to miss. That is a structural failing, not an individual failing, and that you could possibly zero in on the closing 'crat in such a case when neither you or anyone else noticed the problem in your oppose votes smacks of bad faith. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
          • "that you could possibly zero in on the closing 'crat" - what do you mean by this? Have you read my opening to this whole thread? Please do. Peter Damian (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
            • I read a whole lot more than the opening. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
              • Where I said " Perhaps you are not to blame (I'm not saying you are). " Peter Damian (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
              • Just to be clear, my complaint was his apparent claim that "information that comes to light after an election has been closed is not relevant ('germane') to the election, or to the election process". Peter Damian (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
                • If only you had stopped there. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • FlyingToaster has just gone through one stressful week and is now responding to various AFDs and other criticisms of her articles. I would suggest that at the very least that she be given time to respond to the various issues raised since her RFA and that any discussion of a second RFA or desysopping wait until she has had reasonable time to respond to criticisms. Also as much of the opposition during her RFA was due to her participation in IRC, wouldn't it be better if those who oppose the existence of those channels made a formal proposal as to whether it was appropriate for Wikipedians to participate in them, rather than risk any future RFAs of hers or other IRC participants being sidetracked into another IRC anti IRC debate. ϢereSpielChequers 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • And this discussion is going far beyond the scope of this board. It has been established that AD did the right thing at the time - move on. Agathoclea (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with Agathoclea that this thread here has outlived its usefulness as well as that consensus seems to be that the decision by AD, no matter the issues raised after the RFA was closed, was the correct decision based on a crat's job (judging arguments, not investigating the candidate themselves) and that the concerns about FT's alleged copyright violations, while worrisome if true, cannot be evaluated at this venue. I'd close this thread myself but I know people might think I'm biased (even though I was away for the whole length of FT's RFA), so I urge an uninvolved admin/crat to evaluate whether there is really any more discussion needed about whether AD's closure of the RFA was correct or not, which is the only question that should be discussed at BN. Regards SoWhy 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No it going nowhere here, it needs to go to Arbitration. I can't beleive anyone can be around Wikipedia for so long that they are able to become an Admin without knowing that copyvio is against the rules - the most basic fundamental Wikipedian rule. I've listened to all the excuses and justifiacation, all I see is an RFA that was a con from start to finish. Giano (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, who stops you from taking it there? If you really feel that is the only and correct venue, probably no amount of discussion will cause you to reconsider. Personally though I assume that a request for arbitration at this point will probably declined as premature. Regards SoWhy 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Honesty. If objections of this nature were raised, I think the closing 'crat should have looked into them and possibly extended the RFA so that the community would have more time to investigate. At this point, the dispute needs to go to ArbCom. I have not investigated the underlying claims and take no position on them. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Commenting on Dweller's proposal, I think it's a good one, but not yet. Everything needs to be laid out clearly so that everyone is able to see exactly how bad the situation is. Let the debates about how serious the plagiarism is carry on to some sort of end, then consider (if it's even an option for her, in her mind) to re-run RFA. This will give a fair presentation to voters, after the dust has settled. It will show exactly how bad the copyright violations are/were, and will give time for FT to show her willingness to fix the problems. Keeping in mind that these articles were (at least many of them) created years ago, it's not a far stretch of the mind that she'd not really considered them recently. Also, I don't think it's in question that FT has the best intentions and probably didn't realize that she was violating copyrights when writing these articles, of course, not realizing that can be a cause for concern when considering adminship candidacy. So, in short, a re-run of the RFA, I think, is a good idea, but only after the tension has eased up and the dust settled on the situation, and once everything is clearly presented for the voting community.
• As far as the RFA close by AnonDiss, he went by the book. This is not a failure of the closing 'crat or of the RFA process (which don't get me wrong, is fail in a lot of ways). This case was the failure of the voters who didn't vet the candidate. Of course, no one is required to do anything on this project, so I'm not casting blame at anyone, but it's really unfair to cry and complain about the close of the RFA when it was you, if you voted, who failed to do your research. لennavecia 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose idea of rerun but support the idea that FT be persuaded to resign. As I said above, either a process has rules - in which case infringement is punished. Or it does not have lots of rules, but relies on principles like trust, basic honesty and common sense. In which case there is no punishment, but those who break those principles can be expected to do the decent thing. As I'm sure FT will, as she seems like a fundamentally decent person. Peter Damian (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This has now gone beyond the ridiculous: You talk of a re-run. 100 people have just voted for an Admin (known as Boriss on IRC) who is hardly known at all on Wikipedia, who is so unused to Wikipedia that she did not even know it was wrong to coptpaste other people's work onto Wikipedia and claim it as her own. Those same people who supported her RFA now have the audacity to argue now in her defence. You insult everyone who has ever spent more than an hour writing a page. This project is sick - really sick. I suggest that those of you who do not see this as wrong, very wrong, fuck off back to IRC or wherever it is you came from and stay there; leave writing this encyclopedia to those that care about it and are prepared to do some real work to prove it. Giano (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano, be civil, or don't comment at all. Prodego ^talk 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you've made your point Giano. Perhaps you should take your advice... You are doing the good countess a disservice spending so much time on this. –xeno ^talk 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• The good Countess you so sarcastically refer to, which is far from my usual field (as many will tell you very happily), was a page I found perchance here [16], as a bio, it was the worst I had ever read and I commented on it, then realised my own advice is don't moan fix it. So as penance for my own big mouth - I researched for hours and fixed it. That is what proper editors do. So don't you even infer sarcasm at me. Giano (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we take this elsewhere, and deal with the real, very problematic issues here?

I'm commenting here as one of the editors who has actually bothered to do a couple of things that should be obvious: 1) I've actually looked into some of the articles FT has written (I found the various problems in the "flux" articles which Peter cited above); 2) I've left a note on FT's talk page asking her to explain herself. Some things that might be constructive right now would be to: 1) Look at some other articles and point out plagiarism problems (really, it would be great if some of the above energy could go into that, since we might have a lot of copyvios sitting out there); 2) Wait awhile for FlyingToaster's reply.

In my view it is now obviously incredibly annoying that this RfA passed (I did not participate), but it's not the crats fault that it did. There's not a whole lot more to say about this specific case here on this page. I suggest we let FlyingToaster respond to my comment on her talk page or various comments elsewhere and then proceed accordingly. I personally would hope that she could be persuaded to resign the bit without further drama, and barring that I think we are looking at an RFC for starters whereby the community makes known its views on her fitness for adminship.

For those who are saying they don't know whether there was plagiarism here, there clearly was, and to suggest that there wasn't either means they just haven't looked into it or demonstrates a lack of real-world understanding about what plagiarism is (Wikipedia:Plagiarism only just became a guideline, as prompted by this incident, but we need to be guided by real-world standards in order to maintain our credibility as free-content encyclopedia). On the several articles I investigated (I only looked at those weird "flux" articles), FT repeatedly pasted whole sentences into stub articles and then slightly altered the wording. That is, without a shadow of a doubt, plagiarism in most all of the Western world. Given the nature of this project it's important for us all to understand that, and it seems quite obvious that FT is not the only one who doesn't. Perhaps the best thing that will come out of all of this is a better understanding of issues relating to plagiarism, and a reaffirmation that some real article work is an absolute prerequisite for an RfA. Personally I feel all future RfA's should contain an explicit question about plagiarism. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Easily the most sensible thing said on this page. Thank you. Peter Damian (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• This level of plagiarism would be a firing offense in academia. I don't see that it matters whether it was discovered a day after or a year after the RfA, but we should similarly hold admins here to a high standard. If we don't have a process in place for desysopping people for blatant disregard of our standards (and I don't think we do, unless it's Arbcom), maybe we should. I agree with earlier posters that the best outcome would be for FT to voluntary resign, spend three months or a year showing an improved understanding of when not to copy, and then try again, but what if FT doesn't want to resign? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly a firing offense, but also cause for failing a paper if a student does it. Indeed just a couple of days ago I had to fail a couple students at the college where I teach for exactly the kind of thing FT did (though my students did not even cite their source - I guess I'm a bad teacher!). If FT doesn't want to resign I really think we should do an RFC to determine the level of dissatisfaction (this is one of the rare cases where an RFC might actually do some good) and then go from there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a bureaucrat matter

I'm sure all the people that are trying to get FlyingToaster desysopped (or whatever) won't care what I think, but I'm going to say it anyway. Some of you don't like her. I get it. I don't like some of you either. I see issues which need addressing, like misunderstanding about copyright policy (and law), and whatnot. However, this isn't a matter for bureaucrats and if the ArbCom is anything like it was when I was on it, they won't accept a case about this. Pressuring her into resigning after complaining about how much the opposers were pressured is very hypocritical. Either way, you're not going to get anywhere unless you somehow convince her to resign. Good luck with that. Please feel free to continue to waste time discussing this here. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, B's lack the technical ability to desysop in any case, something only stewards can do. Not sure what this thread is attempting to do but, IMHO, barking at Bureaucrats seems rather unproductive. I would think RfC would be the only reasonable next step for anyone wishing to pursue. Ronnotel (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)