Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 40 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 34 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	17	16	33
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	10	52	62
AfD	0	0	0	7	7

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 58 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 27 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 15 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects#Add Wikifunctions or not?

(Initiated 275 days ago on 20 August 2023) Could an uninvolved admin please determine whether there is a consensus to add Wikifunctions to the Main Page? Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 118 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 112 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 98 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 34 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 23 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1#Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 19 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Resolved

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

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

It's hard to tell since you haven't provided a diff, but if you're referring to The Sherry Theater, then your CSD was converted to a PROD. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It was already proposed for deletion before, thus it is ineligible for deletion via that venue. --81.98.49.178 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. In any case, AfD should have been the next step for an editor wishing to pursue deletion, not CSD. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my error, I somehow read that as a speedy deletion. Never mind.  ;) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is only my personal policy, but I have in the past declined CSDs that have sat for 24 hours or more. The thought is that, if in that amount of time, no admin feels comfortable either hitting the delete button or officially declining the CSD, then it is likely not a simple case, and not suitable for CSD. When I do this I make sure to give a decline reason expressing this, and directing the CSD nominator towards AFD where the article can get a more thorough analysis. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer the nominal question, most CSD deletions happen about half an hour after tagging. It depends on the CSD category, though, since some are simpler to figure out than others. There is more information at meta:Research:The Speed of Speedy Deletions if you're interested in the details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to do what TexasAndroid does also, for the same reason--unless of course I can figure it out myself quickly. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Results of PumpkinSky copyvio investigation

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

---

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

Just to be precise, Gerda seems to have written:

2 paragraphs were left without paraphrasing

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

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

The actual CCI can be seen, pre-blanking, here.

I think the conclusion "719 had no problems whatsoever" is a bit overstated, though. :) There are 10 articles with checkmarks, which means 10 articles in which the reviewer felt a copyright problem existed. That does leave 719. A number of those don't seem to be "had no problems whatsoever", though. For example, the first article in section "141 through 160", the reviewer wrote, "A bit close to the source, but a tad too short to really be concerning. Reworded anyway, just to be overly cautious". Several in sections 1 through 20 include similar comments, "A bit of close paraphrasing here and there, but not really serious IMO"; "minor copy-vio repaired before DYK". One of the articles marked X copied from another editor without attribution. It seems that there may be lesser issues with plagiarism in other articles than those marked Y.

It does seem that the bulk of his edits were constructive and without copyright or plagiarism issues, but for accuracy we need to make sure neither to minimize nor inflate the existing problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Roughly 1% - and those primarily involving a "single sentence" = "not much to see." Collect (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's true that problems are minimal, but 1% is not really an accurate figure, either. The person who ran the CCI program did not filter it to eliminate minor edits and reversions, as is typically done with CCIs. If they had, the list would have stopped at #301, as everything below that would have been excluded. It's still a small percentage, obviously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to deduct from that minimal amount, of course, Moonriddengirl, those where the source has taken the only logical way to say something (which does happen, and you do the best you can to make it a bit different anyway or direct quote), and those which no one would look twice at except in the context of a high profile copyright investigation. Probably a wash.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor does a CCI necessarily look at other sourcing issues, which has been an issue on some of Rlevse's past editing. I looked at one article and didn't find copyvio, but did find sourcing issues (I didn't mark it). Why is this at WP:AN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

<AN-spam>

• Template:Did you know nominations/Great Dismal Swamp maroons

</AN-spam>

Alarbus (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not for any reason specific to this case, has anyone done a similar investigation into 500 random articles or something? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good heavens; that would be insanely time-consuming. :) I spent over an hour investigating a single article at CCI this weekend. Much better to spend that time when you know there are issues than randomly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Then how is it known that the issues with ps's text are greatly beyond the norm?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that this question confuses me tremendously. :) Why does it need to be known that issues with ps's text are greatly beyond the norm? Isn't it sufficient to say, "Oh, there's room for improvement here" and ask him to improve? If we find that somebody has an issue with failure to source information, do we need to run a comparative study to see how many others fail to source information? :) Similarly, the existence of problems in one article doesn't mean that problems are okay in another. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, some (to my mind) regrettable things were said about ps in the last AN discussion. As he is presently indef blocked, the question of counseling him does not arise. As similar unfortunate things may be said in this discussion, it may be helpful to know by how far, if at all, he has exceeded the norm, in considering the question of his unblock at some point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I have not been closely following this situation; I was friendly with him in his first account and disappointed when he withdrew. Had he remained, we could have worked together on copying & paraphrasing issues. I have some idea of what the source of the problem may be. In the present CCI I (like Sandy) found issues where our article did not line up with information in the sources used. As I mentioned to Gerda, I wonder if simply slowing down would help deal with both issues. Taking extra time to compose could work. I've seen a lot of CCIs, and I've seen far more concerning situations resolve nicely. It simply takes effort and willingness to comply. (My impression is that PS is much better than he used to be, from a copyright standpoint.)

All that said—because I don't want what I say now to be taken to apply specifically to PS—we don't generally run normative studies when blocking people for failing to conform to policies and guidelines. It seems enough to know that they're failing to conform.

In present case, PS's block log suggests he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and I know from some side discussions I've been involved in that there were some serious concerns that there may have been issues with some of his decisions as a bureaucrat based on those. I think that copyright concerns are only part of the situation here. Surely any review would need to be global. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying this in an official capacity?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I should add, Moonriddengirl, that your final paragraph might be open to misinterpretation :) Here is the blocking admin's actual statement:

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

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

I'm afraid I'm getting confused again. :) Am I saying what in an official capacity? What official capacity? I didn't block him, as far as I can recall, under any account. :/ The block log says, "2 February 2012 Moni3 (talk | contribs | block) blocked PumpkinSky (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)" What do you mean by this quotation? How does that make my final paragraph open to misinterpretation? </confused> --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You characterized the reason why ps was blocked; I merely reproduced the actual block for the benefit of all. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by a "global review", I took that to mean that there were issues beyond en.wiki. Perhaps you just meant that other conduct by ps should be considered. But what did you mean by "some side discussions I've been involved in that there were some serious concerns that there may have been issues with some of his decisions as a bureaucrat based on those"? Are we talking about his closing RfAs in which JoJo had voted?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How is what you wrote different from what the official block log says? And, yes, I do mean other conduct on en Wikipedia. And yes, I'm talking about the JoJo situation, where somebody was actually advocating redoing some of his work based on that. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And that idea was shot down very thoroughly. OK, I think I understand your position. Thank you for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you should do a similar check to articles edited by a number of random content creators to see if the amount of concerns is statistically significant. Basically the sttistics are meaningless without a control case. I cannot say that that if you look at my last 729 articles very carefully there could not be a similar percentage of "concerns". I think we should be reluctant to create an environment where any editor whose edits aren't perfect is a problem editor. Wikipedia is not designed for perfection but for gradual improvement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, ditto.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Except we're not talking about any editors, we're talking about one on his second CCI. Both of which were cleaned up without him. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• When WP:SCV, WP:CP and WP:CCI are empty, maybe we can take the time for that. Unless, of course, somebody who isn't working there wants to do it, in which case, I wish them much joy. :D It would be interesting to see how widespread issues may be, but not as important to me as dealing with known issues. Gradual improvement, obviously, begins with identifying and repairing issues. Editors are not generally blocked for copyright concerns unless they won't stop creating them. I have long advocated for addressing copyright concerns calmly, with an eye towards improvement, rather than shaming and alienating good faith contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that this not an issue if other editors who are not labelled "problem editors" have similar percentages of "problematic edits": Then Pumpkin Sky would just be a normal editor and we would be wasting energy on making him a scapegoat for a community wide issue.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Maunus, but only to the extent where you say "this not an issue if other editors who are not labelled "problem editors" have similar percentages of "problematic edits." No matter how many people share a problem, it's still a problem. :) But I agree with you that we should not be making him a scapegoat. Even if Pumpkin Sky were the only editor on Wikipedia who ever did this, it wouldn't make him a bad person or a worthless contributor. I'd love to see a cultural shift on Wikipedia away from scapegoating. I think we need to be careful, though, that the solution we arrive at doesn't involve excusing or brushing away the problem. We just need to acknowledge, as a community, that close paraphrasing is a delicate art, that there is room for disagreement on what constitutes proper paraphrase, and that even when some contributors paraphrase too closely, by consensus, we should cooperate cordially on defining and implementing community standards, rather than making it a moral crusade. Beyond that, unfortunately, Pumpkin Sky isn't a normal editor by any standard, and that would probably be one of the core issues. He's extremely high profile, as a result of which this has generated a lot of heat. :/ If he were a normal editor, we'd have probably gone through the first CCI with much less fuss and bother, cleaning up the issues, and maybe he'd have helped out instead of departing and would have been happily editing away with no problems. That would have been ideal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But it would then be a systemic problem requiring a systemic solution (e.g. a "paraphrasing patrol" patrolling random articles) and not a moral problem phrased as requiring a moral solution (e.g. blocks or forced cleanup of own articles). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We have systemic solutions: WP:NPP and bot patrol of new articles, recent changes patrol. They aren't perfect, but they're probably the best we're going to get. But why is it a "moral solution" to ask somebody to help clean up an issue they create? It's a matter of expedience. Are blocks a moral solution? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC

Blocks and forced cleanups are solutions to moral issues because they make it a question of individual responsibility (culpability) and rehabilitation instead of a matter of routine maintainance of an encyclopedia. (NPP only patrols new pages - not random old pages as far as I know - and I don't know if bots are able to detect close paraphrasing)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, we're at a bit of a divide on the issue of cleanup and morality (but maybe that's because I spend so much of my time cleaning up issues I didn't create and for which I'm in nobody's perspective culpable; it's hard for me to see "cleanup" as any kind of shaming punishment. On the other hand, I also don't typically even request CCI subjects to help with cleanup, although some of them do.) But "recent changes patrol" is supposed to keep an eye on new edits, as are reviewers at DKY, GA, etc. And, yes, bots pick up close paraphrasing all the time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

From a statistics/analysis perspective, it is inappropriate to state PS's bad edit ratio as if it has some meaning given the lack of context. From a practicality standpoint, there are more issues to be fixed than wikitime and wikieditors to do so. Wikipedia is just a website so personally I don't see it as a moral issue, just a practical one. Nobody Ent 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the point here is that we had a dogpile of quite severe vitriol land upon PumpkinSky/Rlevse, and it was way out of proportion to the actual problem. I agree with Maunus and Nobody Ent that absent a "control" of 800 random articles picked for similar examination and review, we really cannot vilify PS to the degree some folks have; indeed, a style and close paraphrasing problem is not a moral crusade, it's just a style problem, usually fixed with little difficulty, and one reason why we all get to edit everyone else's work without ownership. I have to note that the CCI on Rlevse and the related Vanished account is going along at about the same percentage, only on well over 1000 articles. I think that PS/Rlevse didn't stick around because the rage and vitriol that landed on his head was too much; it seems that a witchhunt mentality took hold and the only option he was given was, essentially, "bend over and assume the position." No one should be expected to accept abject humiliation. If you put the CCI issue in proper perspective (mostly small problems, all fixed), then all you have left basically are only two other issues, 1: the usual wikidrama spats with other users with some hurt feelings all around, for which everyone should all mutually agree to back away from the horse carcass and let the past be the past. 2: The socking/meatpuppet issue which -- On a 1-10 scale of sockpuppetry, this is a 2 or a 3, so issue a wrist slap and move on: We have two accounts, PS and Rlevse, well separated in time, and some evidence that PS/Rlevse had influence over the editing of two other people (JoJo and Barking Moon). The SPI standard is not consistently applied -- I recall once filing an SPI on a different user and being told, essentially, that there would be no investigation as with about a 6-month gap between the two accounts, it wasn't a sock at all, even if it was the same person. (Said user was later blocked for other reasons). I recently filed another SPI on a "good cop/bad cop" sock and while the "bad cop" sock was promptly blocked, no action whatsoever was taken against the master sock account, not even a warning or a scolding. I cannot come to any conclusion but that personalities have gotten tangled up in this at a level that is unproductive. So in short, I think it's time for a referee to blow the whistle, order everyone off the dogpile, and if I may continue the gridiron analogy, issue a ten yard penalty and go on. PS is a good and productive contributor, but also a human being with feelings, and I think he needs to be unblocked, "sentenced" for his "crimes" to "time served," (Rlevse didn't edit for nearly a year) and issued a genuine clean start. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

It's a matter of general interest. Nobody Ent 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@Sandy: Your assumption that Pumpkin Sky was "carrying out a grudge" at FAC is just that—an assumption (you do not know what his motive was); the claim that Rlsevse or Pumpkin Sky was engaged in copy vio is turning out to have little basis in fact. There is a long list of stuff that needs to be checked, but the ones that have been checked are for the most part coming up clean. There is no "massive problem" of copy vio by this user.

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

Your assumption that Pumpkin Sky was "carrying out a grudge" at FAC is just that—an assumption (you do not know what his motive was) - The fact of the matter is that he engaged in baseless sniping over wholly reasonable actions of mine which not a single other person in the community disagreed with. And if the best defense of his behavior you can muster is that we don't know for sure that he did it out of prior malice, that's a pretty weak defense indeed. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The "fact of the matter", Diannaa, is that he himself made a post that led to that characterization of his prior issues with Raul, which I'm not going to bother looking for now, but when it comes to "assumptions", speak feryerself, please, thankyou. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that PS was primarily/consciously carrying out a grudge at FAC – that does not defend his actions, nor imply that editors who perceived his contributions in this way are Wrong^TM or unreasonable (IMO). My impression is that PS/RLevse had come to a view that unelected roles on Wikipedia were not acceptable to him, and pushed the point rather much at FAC, despite (or perhaps because of) community consensus to the contrary. How he came to this view is speculation, but all of us are influenced by our interactions; similarly we might all temper our impressions with a regular note-to-self: "but hey, what do I know?" Geometry guy 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it. He said his issues with and beliefs about the FAC business were "based on my experience with the principals". To me, that means it was personal: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I know of RLevse's writing (with apologies for making a general criticism), it is rather likely that "principals" is simply a misspelling here. But hey... Geometry guy 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my ... that puts a whole new spin on it, doesn't it :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

@ Dianna I meant if there was a reason why this thread should be continue in the first place hysterically (bleh wrong word, I meant hypothetically bleh spell check), which neither of my scenarios didn't happen. Also the first time PumpkinSky/Rlevse tried to get unblocked he offered to come back practically on his own terms, which included getting some of his biggest supporters as "mentors". That didn't help his cause, and turned some people off including myself. I'm more than willing to let Rlevse back to the project but it needs to be under consensus from the community. That's how Wikipedia always functioned. Secret ^account 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Secret: Okay, thanks for clarifying. I am pretty sure it wouldn't matter who was mentoring, as there would be many observers as well. --Dianna (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at his posts from that period I see a person with a lot of anger and a big chip on his shoulder. But this one diff Sandy presents cannot justify the belief that he was carrying out some sort of personal vendetta. I personally do not believe this to be true. @ Secret: There is no "massive deletion of problematic material" that needs to be done, and as far as I know no one has said the user would be setting his own conditions if he returns to editing. I for one said no such thing. @ Raul (and Geometry Guy), last I heard, disagreeing with you or sniping at you or pushing for elections in an annoying way are not blockable or bannable offences. If they were, I would be outa here myself ;> -- Dianna (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I like that little glimpse of self-awareness :) :), but there's a big difference between you and Rlevse sniping at FAC or Raul, which is called RTV and attempts to evade scrutiny, and shall we mention that as an arb dealing with a former arb, there may well be private issues that only Raul and Rlevse know about. Anyway, re my diff above, G guy's feedback puts it in a whole new light, which I accept as a real possibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I also saw the PumpkinSky account as employing a grudge against FAC and asked him point blank at one time to explain why he was going after Raul with such force. In fact, I was sure based on the quality of his communications I saw across multiple pages, that PumpkinSky was no older than 15. I leaned toward 12. Because of the skepticism here, are we going to have to collect diffs to prove that Rlevse was disruptive and exacerbated a tedious, overlong, and melodramatic discussion at FAC for no reasonable purpose? --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole idea of "scrutiny" needs to come under scrutiny. Sometimes attempts to avoid scrutiny are actually attempts to avoid being unfairly accused of things that the person did not actually do, or a genuine attempt at a clean start. Some people sock because they get tired of the same old crowd of editors following them around watching their every move and reporting the slightest problem for a big cluster-fuck at ANI (sorry, I am pretty sure we are no longer allowed to swear, but I can't think of any other way to say this).

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

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

Acting 12 for a 12-year-old is fine by me. Acting 12 for a fully functional adult and an ex-arb is not. Neither is being disruptive and deceptive. I never said the discussion was pointless. I think you and others mischaracterize and misunderstand what I think FAC should be. Part of the problem in being unable to understand my side or yours in a calm discussion was the poor quality of communication blanketing FAC, which Rlevse was directly responsible for, if not in totality. It could have been a much different process and much more could have been accomplished--perhaps outcomes that you favor and I see sense in--had the level of communication been productive and reasonable. Much of it was not. Wasted time, wasted opportunity. --Moni3 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No. We have WP:CLEANSTART and it is respected. But if one chooses to start anew one has to stay away from old disputes, anything else is disruptive for a collaborative community. SCRUTINY is important. Amalthea 23:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Amalthea, correct. @ Diannaa: cluster-fuck at ANI (sorry, I am pretty sure we are no longer allowed to swear, but I can't think of any other way to say this). Try Charlie Foxtrot. Closer attention is being paid to sourcing, for example. Unsure what you're talking about, since the "closer attention being paid to sourcing" came about earlier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

SNAFU has the advantage of plausible denialability -- the f stands for "fouled," right? Nobody Ent —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC).

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

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

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

Please help my confusion

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

Normally we don't block people for a poorly executed "clean start" attempt following an RTV (and we certainly don't indef them for it) but he made a few obnoxious remarks at WT:Featured article candidates, where he and Moni3 were on opposite sides of a dispute over FA processes, so here we are. 28bytes (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey I should get credit for things far beyond my control more often. It would help my suffering self-esteem. Normally I would think myself fairly insignificant, but I like how powerful and influential I am in 28 bytes' description much more. Also, someone rub my feet now. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're in control of who you block. I'd hope, anyway. 28bytes (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory response calling attention to your ridiculous premise. Invitation to talk page where complaints and discussion regarding the block never took place. Diff to Elen of the Roads' comment supporting block. Reminder PumpkinSky account unblocked by another user and reblocked by still another. Witty questions about intelligence of people in groups and/or on the Internet, unbreakable cycles of miscommunication. Melodramatic allusions to scapegoats and conspiracies. Escalation. Repeat. --Moni3 (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't give such flip answers, Moni, as editing Wikipedia is obviously incredibly important for this user. Normally blocks for sockpuppetry are a week or some such. The policy states "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator." You were aware at the time that the original acct was blocked and unusable, so why the indef block? Why indef, rather than some shorter period? It doesn't matter that no one asked at the time. I am asking you now. -- Dianna (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to hear from Moni3 about the thought processes and reasons involved in her block of PumpkinSky and remind her of the obligation on admins to explain their administrative actions on request. I join Dianaa in formally requesting such an explanation per WP:ADMINACCT, and have dropped a line for Moni3 on her talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Moni3, but for me it is an Inappropriate_use_of_alternative_account - although not strictly or neatly in one of the categories, there is prior history which illuminates the PS accounts' point of view which I feel is unfair and giving the illusion of two unconnected accounts having a particular point of view. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but I'd like to hear from Moni3 with her explanation. I do appreciate your efforts to help during the unblock attempt, though. I should add that one thing that is being considered is an appeal of the original block to ArbCom, so arbs might want to take care.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As to your second point, yes, that's why the (WMF) is part of the username. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Once or twice I've muffed up which account I've logged into, but I've corrected it immediately. :) This is a community matter; the WMF has nothing to do with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock conditions?

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

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

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

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

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

Re "Rlevse wasn't evading a ban or vote stacking, or other abusive matters". Sorry, I disagree. He was evading a block or two. And persistently attacking people with whom you've had serious prior disagreements with a new account is probably one of the prime reasons why WP:SCRUTINY was written. (Otherwise I could have just created a new account and posted this comment with that instead as if ASCIIn2Bme had never commented on the Rlevse matter before. I can immediately imagine the question "whose sock are you?" addressed to my new account after that.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The User:BarkingMoon thing is concerning, and it would be really nice to find out what's up with that, but I'd like to see some way back for Rlevse that gets him in good stead and working on the project again. An interaction ban might help leave any old grudges at the door. On the whole, these seem like good restrictions as trust is rebuilt. (With respect to hearing from ArbCom (as per below), I have no great opinion on that either way.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, Moonriddengirl, you should read ps's explanation of the BarkingMoon question, and the statements of those who have examined the evidence. If you find them insufficient, you should say so and say why with specificity and diffs. If you find ps's explanation of the JoJo closings insufficient, as you apparently did above, you should say so and say why, with specificity and diffs.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, Wehwalt, you should be careful about drawing conclusions about where people stand on issues. :) I did not link to the conversation in which I took part before, and won't, because it draws in somebody who doesn't deserve the drama. But I defended allowing his closures to stand. Creating "us" vs. "them" is part of the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that is why I'm concerned that personallities have played to great a part in the PumpkinSky discussions. However, in my view, he's been hard done by, and I intend to civilly see that something is done about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody hat these over-the-top wishful-restrictions, some of which are just talk. Giving FA-ville a free pass on PumpkinSky's views is unhelpful. Best to simply unblock him. Alarbus (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody close this whole unblock discussion. The block was good, there's no consensus to unblock, and apart from Diana's blatant mischaracterizations, Rlevse's apologists here have not made any effort address Rlevse's numerous behavioral issues. Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a bad, obviously WP:INVOLVED indef block, and the only reason I didn't point this out loudly when it happened was in the interest of collegiality and avoiding drama. You don't indef people you're in a dispute with; this is basic admin policy 101. But now that Moni3 and others are trash-talking him further when he's not even here to defend himself, I feel no such restraint from mentioning it. The only thing that would have made it a worse, more WP:Involved block is if you'd done it yourself. And quite a few of his "apologists" have bent over backwards to address the legitimate concerns with his editing, including copyright mentoring (which was thrown back in our faces) as well as explicit restrictions on his editing. Saying his behavioral issues haven't been addressed – by either him or those who want to see him unblocked – is simply untrue. 28bytes (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

but it is autocrat 101 policy… Alarbus (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus to unblock was running about 50-50 when Psky withdrew his request, it would have been interesting to see where it would have gone if it had been given a couple weeks. People who support an unblock of Rlevse are starting to feel pretty intimidated here; certainly I am. (If the comment "Oh goodness, so much unnecessary rhetoric still" after my last post wasn't a snipe at me to make me shut up, when what was it?) I think that Secret's proposal is a solid launching point, and if Rlevse's "apologists" are not going to be allowed to offer support, than his "persecutors" should likewise be asked to step aside and remain silent in favor of neutral third parties. To that end, Secret's proposal for an interaction ban between him and both Raul and Sandy is highly appropriate, and possibly a couple other people such as ASCIIn2Bme should likewise be ranked into a 'too partisan to be neutral' category. Will Beback has already been dealt with, and I must note that it was Will's attacks and blackmailing via email that upped the drama significantly in the whole situation. Rlevse/PSky's supporters have largely self-identified on the Psky user talk page, have those who wish to see him banned from wikipedia forever been so open? Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my. Here we go again. Personalizing and accusations based on when I happened to weigh in on the discussion. And anyone impartial reading this would think I'd called for a block of Rlevse, or initiated the CCI, or opposed his FACs, or something! I'm also curious why we need to treat a former arb like a child (would that be because, as Moni observed, he acted like one?) Do we really need to tell a former arb that he is limited to one account? For that matter, do we really need to tell Raul not to close his FACs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(after ec with Wehwalt) You got that right. Feel free to provide a diff for context, and to also place it in context of everything else I said. Now, I realize that at AN and ANI admins and some others can say whatever they want without diffs, while some can't say boo anywhere even with diffs, but accusations of "too partisan to be neutral" are not or should not be taken lightly, and if someone is going to shoot that at me, I'd like to see some diffs that include all of my statements in context. Otherwise, Montanabw, please brush up on WP:NPA. By the way, who the heck has advocated that Rlevse should be banned forever? Will no one stop the incessant vague sniping, personalizing, and rhetoric going on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Followup cluestick: I have repeatedly said that my problems with Rlevse were more related to his sourcing than copyvio or anything else, and since the issue that he sourced articles to a website written and maintained by himself is a diffable fact that can't be disputed, I'd like to know what about that makes me "too partisan to be neutral"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

And I make enough typos without help from you ! "Here were go again" ?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 28bytes that Moni3 was involved, and should not have perfomed the block at all. --Dianna (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For my own edification, can you supply links or diffs to interactions that make you feel that Moni3 was WP:INVOLVED? I don't remember thinking that at the time, but maybe I missed something. Discussions of Rlevse/PS have run all over WP and it's difficult to remember what happened and where. --Laser brain (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I can go diff-hunting if needed, but I don't think there's any serious disagreement that Moni3 and PS were on opposite sides of a heated discussion over FAC leadership last month. Each of them commented dozens of times on the matter at WT:FAC, continued the debate on other editors' talk pages and elsewhere, obviously with strong feelings on both sides. 28bytes (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Laser, there are other diffs I found concerning, but being the legal type, I like to hear from everyone. Please note that I have not called Moni involved, and she generally edits in the evenings US time. Let's wait for her. I'm busy with McKinley right now and don't have time for this :). It may be that this is a misunderstanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Laser brain, I don't see much evidence of Moni3 being involved with the exception of being involved in FAC, unless I'm missing something. It was a poor block though. There wasn't any basis for the block as an sockpuppet, as it doesn't qualify per our policy regarding them. With RTV, our guidelines is unclear on whether a block is appropriate to a returning RTV account. A block was more acceptable for disrupting FAC.

@Raul654, most of the editors who opposed the grounds for Rlevse coming back was because there wasn't a clear consensus on what sanctions we should apply to him coming back to the project. They generally agreed that Rlevse is welcome to comeback with the proper settings, and under intense scrutiny. And there's clearly not any consensus for a ban. Only a handful of editors supported a site ban, one of whom later became banned himself. Also his self-proposal to comeback under his own conditions drove away some editors who might have supported him returning, including myself. There's is consensus for a Rlevse unblock, just not under the conditions that were set before. A topic ban from FAC, and a interaction ban with you and Sandy will satisfy most of your concerns. Secret ^account 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Sandy. I agree that it's been a shame that some of the burden in this situation has been placed on you. You didn't have almost nothing to do with him leaving in the first place, and it was mostly you and Raul that bore the criticism of PumpkinSky. It's typical WP:INVOLVED that we try to avoid future drama, nothing to do with you guys personally. Like me and many other users were saying, if Rlevse didn't stormed out instead of settling what most likely would have been a minor slap in the wrist and back to normality for everyone, we clearly wouldn't be adding this conversation. A topic ban would be appropriate if he ever wants to return. Also the restrictions offered are ones that are typically offered to users in order to ease a return to editing from previous issues, either in here or through ArbCom, no matter the experience.

Also did anybody even bother to contact Rlevse/PumpskinSky about this proposal? Thanks Secret ^account 06:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read PSky's self-proposal to come back as a "under his own conditions" ultimatum of any sort so much as an opening proposal with some ideas (someone would have asked him for his own ideas had he not done so initially, right?). If memory serves, there were some ideas floated that modified his proposal to be stricter and he was viewing them favorably. The problem there, as here, is that the emotionality heated up so fast that the actual issues were drowned out. They are, then as now, unchanged: 1) A potential CCI problem (minor and taken care of), 2) some disputes at FAC that got personalized (snarky, but where's the policy violation or blockable offense?) and a 3) potential socking problem (an awk RTV return at most). And yes, an editor with sourcing issues, which are issues of WP:V, most of them since replaced anyway (some via the CCI, I fixed one myself) and not something that rises to an admin level. So I say Secret's proposal is still quite workable, including the interaction ban with individuals he has specifically named. Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mkay, this is devolving into another 1st vs. 2nd mover advantage and "no consensus to [un]block". Given that the community is as deadlocked on this case as they are on the policy itself, I think this should be moved a full ArbCom case before anyone's bits come in the line of fire. Arbitrators have signed up to resolved cases where the community is bitterly divided and this surely appears to be one of those to me. Let ArbCom decide what sanctions or return restrictions are needed, if any. I think that is a superior alternative to bickering and reciprocal attacks this thread is quickly becoming. I'll be quite busy in real life for the next 24hrs or so, but I'll be able to present evidence later in the weekend if the case is accepted. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Blocking is a tool not a sanction. I see no purpose for an ArbCom case until RLevse/PS re-expresses a wish to return. There would then be many issues that could usefully be discussed (with the participation of RLevse/PS) to achieve mutual understanding; such efforts are prerequisite to a community call for arbitration (RLevse/PS can of course make a direct appeal instead).Geometry guy 00:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Moni3: That's a reasonable, (and reasonably calm) summary. I've reviewed the prior (Feb14) discussion which I did not participate in:

• I don't think anyone is disputing that PS broke Wikipedia rules. That said, we have a dispute resolution system, not a justice system, so what sanctions are appropriate is always a legitimate topic of conversation.
• Given your involvement with featured articles and PS's disruption of the FA community, it would have been preferred another editor make the block to avoid the appearance of impropriety. This is not to say the block was unjustified nor that it should be reversed and certainly none of the desysop! nonsense that occurs far too infrequently. Nobody Ent 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Why would it be other than indefinite? That's what is indicated for sock blocks. Nobody Ent 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea is you block socks indefinitely. The primary account block is discretionary. "The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator."--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

— Moody Blues, Days of Future Passed

Which is the sock, and which is the main account? Whether the length of the applied block was technically correct isn't a useful question to hash through in the context of moving forward and reaching consensus. Nobody Ent 10:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a better thing to be focusing on right now: whether or not Pumpkin Sky wishes to edit, and if so, under what conditions that will be happening. Thanks for your input. -- Dianna (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Overtaken by events above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What we should hear from ArbCom before any further !voting on unblocking takes place here We should hear that the BarkingMoon and IP socking concerns have been addressed in a matter satisfactory to the majority of the Committee without breaching Rlevse's privacy, i.e. without on-wiki disclosure. I want to see an ArbCom motion voted along the lines of "After examining on-wiki evidence and having heard an explanation from the account(s) involved, in the opinion of the Committee the concerns about sockpuppetry and/or evasion of scrutiny do not justify a block or other sanction of PumpkinSky." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Support request for motion ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose request for motion

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

Two users with same user picture

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

---

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

Almost certainly the same individual, 2 different accounts; probably lost password to first and created second. Neither has edited for years - nothing to see here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you a) discussed the policies around WP:Alternate accounts with them, and b) advised them (both of them - even though they are obviously the same person) that you have brought them here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be pointless as the user (in both his incarnations) hasn't edited since 2008. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Recent activity

Why did it look like it was uploaded to commons today? [1] ? Nobody Ent 23:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I figured the answer was that the image had been uploaded and deleted, only for someone else to upload another one under the same name, but the logs don't show any evidence that there's ever been another image (either at en:wp or at Commons) named Saroj.jpg. Saroj1.rout exists, but his only edits are to his sandbox so far. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like uploaded the photo on commons Nobody Ent 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't explain why the users linked a nonexistent file. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The filename is fairly generic. It's easily possible both users planned to upload the file or just didn't understand how files work. If you've been around enough, you've probably seen people try to use files on their computers and stuff like that. In this specific case, one of them originally used example.jpg [2] and this was in article space before being moved to their user page [3]. BTW I said 'both' users. If you look at the info, I'm not sure either user is the same person (and possibly neither are the same person as the file uploader). While they have similar names, and come from the same Indian state, it sounds like they come from different places in the state. Nil Einne (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Actually it seems clear from the user talk page at least one of them did upload an image under that name in 2006 but it was deleted. Checking the en deletion log or page logs confirms this [4] [5]. I presume this was somehow missed by Nyttend, perhaps they checked out the wrong thing or there was a bug.

From this, it seems what happened is User:Sarozkumar uploaded a file allegedly of themselves in 2006 and used it in their user page but it was deleted due to copyright concerns. They never bothered to remove the link to the image from their user page. User:Sarojkumarsahoo in 2008 created a page in article space where they linked to the image, the page was moved to their user page but the image was apparently never uploaded so was always a red link. Later just recently, User:Saroj1.rout uploaded a file with that name to commons. Whether this person is the same as either of the previous 2 users is unknown but because both user pages were linking to that file, it appeared on their user pages leading to the confusion over the identities. To avoid this confusion and given the lack of editing for a long time, I've removed the links to the images on their user pages. The current picture could easily not be of either user & if it's deleted, so to the next time.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking of facts to make a subject look bad

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

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

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

Wikipedia:I just don't like it? GiantSnowman 17:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No; that's about deletion discussions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed this in performer articles too; it seems some editors, after seeing a lacklustre show, will see the need to report on that bad show. Usually they can find a blog post to back up their unsatisfactory experience. Sometimes WP serves as a release valve for angry people. The Interior (Talk) 17:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, 'I don't like it' is about deletion discussions; 'I just don't like it' covers article content (among other stuff) GiantSnowman 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry and Undue seem to cover it, unless you're looking for an essay describing the motives behind why the user wants to make the edits? Or using bad sources to justify the material? --Onorem♠Dil 17:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:CHERRY refers to a coatrack, so it's only when the user wants to talk about another subject entirely. In this case, the user isn't trying to change the subject, rather to criticize the current subject. As for WP:UNDUE, yes this falls under its umbrella, but undue weight can be a reference to any undue weight whatsoever, whereas I'm referring only to the type of undue weight that is given when a person wants to make the subject look bad and cherry picks subjects that accomplish this purpose. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I still think it works for conveying the idea about what's wrong with that type of edit. WP:CHERRY may be located on the page about coatracks, but its argument clearly stands by itself too. (Anyway...back on topic. I don't know about a separate fact picking essay myself, but I'll look around a bit) --Onorem♠Dil 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Perhaps a good essay is the one I wrote. Not sure. Try reading Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat#Levitation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to pile on, WP:UNDUE is probably the most relevant policy in this situation, though several others are also relevant (most obviously, WP:BLP and WP:RS). From my experience though, this is a difficult issue to deal with - I'm aware of several editors who cherry pick facts they like from academic sources to write articles which push their views while ignoring other parts of the source which contradict this viewpoint and/or deliberately reference only a narrow range of sources when developing articles on controversial topics in which there are competing views. This is obviously highly dishonest editing, but there's no clear-cut policy which can be pointed to. 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Nick-D (talk)

I disagree. This policy seems to be pretty much covering it Giving "equal validity".--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

You have hit upon an important hole in Wikipedia policies. The one that should take care of the (wp:undue of wp:npov) is (other than its vague goal statement) is toothless here because it's nuts and bolts calls for going by prevalence in sources, which is, from a practical standpoint, unusable. If the material is truly about the individual, that still might be of some help. If it is not and put in for effect (i.e. his uncle is a child molester) then you hit the bigger hole because it should be excludable based on lacking direct relevance, but wp:npov is missing the important metric of relevance. North8000 (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like an interesting hole in the policies. I've posted in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Relevance to see if the degree of relevance is covered by other policies and if not, maybe it should be. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSH, maybe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That givers the general goals and givs people an idea of venues to pursue it further, but doesn't really have any specifics that can be invoked to affect the situation. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good faithed sock alternate account

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

I don't see any problems with the new account so far. As long as one is not trying to evade scrutiny by doing so, I don't see how that is not prohibited. --MuZemike 02:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate accounts are not socks. Nobody Ent 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The "red flag edit" link is a demonstration that the user already knows the policy and is following it. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirects

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

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

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

 Done - I've fixed all of the broken redirects, deleted the .css and .js pages, edited the fully protected pages and left messages on the 2 user talk pages of the users that were experimenting with redirects. Thanks, The Helpful One 13:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the biggest reasons we have userspace is to allow testing. If you look at WP:UP, you'll notice that the only type of redirect prohibited is that of redirecting a user talk page to anything except the user talk page of another account controlled by the same person. There is no good reason to delete. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed userpages can be used for testing purposes. However Special:DoubleRedirects should not be used for testing purposes. Such pages in peoples userspace can have a performance impact on the entire site as these redundant double redirects show up under Special:DoubleRedirects which has finite slots per iteration. If these people are testing something for the past several months I think we should know what exactly are they testing and why they cannot run these tests on test.wikipedia or some other location. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy permits it right now. If you don't like it, bring it up at WT:UP. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well. This thread can be closed as the +40 double redirects have been dealt with. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request from Checker Fred

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

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

Hi Checker Fred,

When I read your unblock request, I read the following:

• You have an account named Checker Fred which was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12 on june 30th
• You have a second account named Oolith from which you requested an IP block exempt
• You are not the same person as Simulation12

Some questions remain open:

• Have you ever created any other accounts?
• What is your relation to Simulation12?
• Have you ever edited anonymously since the account Checker Fred was blocked? (Me)

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

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

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

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

• Oolith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Billey bob (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The Master of disguises (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CookieGrabber (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 1mikie19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bessie Yeh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

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

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

Ugh, for some reason I missed those on the SPI. Oolith is Checker Fred by own admission. Could you point to where Oolith is  Confirmed? I can't quickly find it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose CheckerFred is Sim12, that much is obvious to anyone familiar with chasing his endless army of socks. Fred knows perfectly well why he is blocked, because he is one of the 90 socks created by Sim12. OFFER does not apply to a user who creates 90 sockpuppets and won't admit to it, even now. OFFER does not apply to a user who tried to become an admin with a sockpuppet. And it certainly shouldn't apply to a user who created socks and then reported them as socks of another user they didn't like. We don't need these silly games here, and the disruption did not end when CheckerFred was blocked. Ninety chances is more than enough and we shouldn't let this phony "I don't know what I did wrong" act fool us just because some time has passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed unban/unblock of User:TrEeMaNsHoE

• TrEeMaNsHoE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
• Ban proposal: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Ban of User:TrEeMaNsHoE?

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

Dear User: MuZemike,

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

User: TrEeMaNsHoE

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

• Conflicted Because I am generally a big believer in second chances, but this user already had theirs and spit in the faces of those (including me) who gave it to them. See the page history of User talk:PlannerPenBackpack. I extended WP:OFFER to this user, to give them a chance to prove they could reform, and they made it less than a week before being caught socking again. Just going away doesn't prove they can be a productive member of the community here, although I'll grant it's a start. I'm just not sure we can trust this user after so many lies in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cautious Support per MuZemike. I can understand Beeblebrox's concerns, however it's been more than 2 years since the "OFFER", and it seems that this user has not misbehaved in quite some time. Those who know me realize that I am much more for bringing people in to the project, than I am for pushing them out. I'll also add that a couple years can bring a world of difference to a person's outlook on things - especially in cases of younger folks. People do change, and I think we should give them a chance to. If they misbehave again - the block button isn't all that far away. — Ched :  ?  02:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support as long as he has to stick to the TrEeMaNsHoE account and with the understanding that any further socking will result in immediate siteban reinstatement. Night Ranger (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Ched, yes, the OFFER incident was two years ago. In the intervening time Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TrEeMaNsHoE/Archive filled up with fifteen more reports, almost all of which uncovered multiple socks, the most recent bout being in September. I could see how it may be seen to be implied in my remarks that this is a stale issue, but really I just mentioned it as an example of the outright dishonesty this user has exhibited again and again. If we are even going to consider this it should be with not only a "sudden death" restriction on operating multiple accounts for any reason, but also a full topic ban from the areas where this user caused problems to begin with. That would be any article related to Ciara, construed as broadly as possible, and if I recall correctly, any edit to sales figures by any recording artist. Possible additional restrictions would be a requirement to provide a reliable source with any and all substantive edits regardless of subject and a requirement that they have a mentor with whom they will consult before making any edit more substantial than a typo correction. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point Beebs - I changed to "cautious" and put their talk on my watchlist in case they do succeed in returning. I looked through edit history, block log, contibs etc. I think they may want to contribute, and got rebellious when things didn't go their way. In the end, it's been about 6 months since that IP socking (class A network, so I'm guessing just rebooted the router, or power outage to get that other IP). If they stick to article space, contribute constructively - personally I'm willing to give them a chance - but I'm only one voice here, and you do have a good point - so I certainly understand your hesitation on this one. — Ched :  ?  04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• oppose unblock, too many socks. support uplifting the block. Block you're doing a fantastic job, keep it up!--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cautious Support - Per MuZemike and Ched with a understanding of Beeblebrox's concerns. (Also have talk page on watchlist) Mlpearc (powwow) 05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support MuZemike's proposed unblock, with preemptive support for a reblock if TrEeMaNsHoE abuses or misuses the second chance we're giving him. 28bytes (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting three admins to close long RfC

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

I've closed the RM as no consensus, and it's already taken up further on the talk page. Two other admins are invited to participate, but I really don't see the call for three unless someone is trying to win- in which case, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Keegan (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not about winning. It's about establishing that this issue has been reviewed impartially by the community, not just one admin. This issue has come up again and again over the years... it's probably the single most discussed issue on the talk page, and it's an issue that editors on the page feel very strongly about, and which causes a good deal of drama. Having multiple admins review the discussion will calm some of that drama. I'd ask that we wait to close the discussion until other admins are given an opportunity to comment. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Jess, and my words were not aimed at anyone in particular. Here on Wikipedia it is very difficult to get 2/3 people to agree on anything. This is why it's about the threashhold for promotion on anything here. RfA, FAC, DYK, etc., cannot meet the standard. It should be noted that I did not close a request for comment, but a requested move, which is a different creature. Keegan (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You better stop posting comments Keegan, the PoV warriors are twisting anything you say to prove an abusive close... --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You might wish to get your facts straight; a 3 admin close was asked for BEFORE the closure. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the 3-admin close bit, i'm commenting on the bunch of users jumping on Keegan and accusing him of treating the debate as a vote or popularity content, despite him/her/it providing full rationale with the close of why it was no consensus. WP:AGF? --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Ten minutes ago you were referring to "Typical scumbag wikipedians". Also, considering the scale of the RfC it would be better for the admin summed up (in the text) the various arguments and then arrived at a conclusion of the state of concensus. Instead of merely stating that "There are strong arguments from both sides, but there is no common agreement or acquiescence.". He also needs to clarify why "Neither argument successfully generates an encyclopedic name for the article." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant about 2/3 agreeing since it's not a vote, surely? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you've already performed the close it seems unlikely that another admin is going to step in and overrule your decision. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reposted from the talk page: With how contentious this issue is it should have been a three admin close. I requested as such at WP:AN though I did so prematurely and so that thread is now archived. Consensus is not supposed to be a tally of the votes but rather a consideration of the strength of the arguments in respect to how well they represent policy and, though I am obviously biased in the issue, I believe that a cursory reading of the !votes show a distinct lack of policy based argument on the side of opposition. I ask that you revert your close and that a three admin panel decide the issue. If that happens and there is still no consensus for a move I believe I can speak for those in support of the move that we will drop the issue, but if the fate of this page is to be decided by a single admin then I'm sorry but I don't think that that can happen. Furthermore, if there is no consensus for a move, then according to the policy WP:CCC this page must be moved to the title used by the first editor after the article was no longer a stub as the title here has been unstable and disputed for a very long time. Lastly, whether editors here think that "myth" or "narrative" is more encyclopedic seems irrelevant in the face of all the sources that non-contentiously use "creation myth" as the designated terminology. To let editor opinion sway the issue is an egregious violation of the very essence of NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One other point: you expressed an opinion on the talk page regarding a title and though it was neither narrative nor myth it's a gray area as to whether or not you're WP:INVOLVED at this point. I realize you were not involved previously, but the fact that you entered the discussion makes the situation murky. N^oformation ^Talk 10:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear, Keegan is not "involved": "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Nobody Ent 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good close. Nobody Ent 12:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I second Ent. WP:AGF - as has been touted by the "move" side consistently in this case - is thrown out of the window when its implications are bad for the WP:BATTLEGROUND? Further comment: bad form. Trying to claim the (completely uninvolved) admin is now involved based on some technicality of where he typed a few words (to try to lessen the acrimonious nature of the entire proceeding by giving a WP:THIRDOPINION after the close strikes me as most egregious WP:WIKILAWYERING. Also, WP:NOTLAW. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Noone is doing anything other than assuming good faith. An individual can in good faith make a mistake, we are only human. It does not mean we ignore the issues. I suggest you read this section of AGF: Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively, because just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. I do not see the relevance of your link to battleground. It seems noformation is pointing out that the admin choose to involve himself in the discussion of the naming after performing the close. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My citation of battleground has less to do with this specific admin, but to the warzone he got dragged in to when closing a request for move (not RfC) that already has plenty of entrenched warriors on both sides: I believe it is relevant, because it appears that mentality has carried over in to - nay, caused - this entire section. I don't think it's in bad faith - I think that Genesis creation narrative has been a battleground of POV-warriors for so long (years, reading the archives) it's now a razed warzone, everyone is shellshocked, and it's subconscious. (Hyperbole, of course, but I believe I've described my point.) When people start making socks (TCH & Zenkai) to prove their points, I think a battleground mentality has prevailed. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with John that Keegan was not involved at the time of the close. However, AGF is not in question here. I don't think anyone doubts that Keegan did his best to close the discussion properly and serve the best interests of the encyclopedia. Editors are claiming that, despite his best intentions, he made a mistake. I also don't see any battleground behavior, just users who feel that policy was not followed. I'd urge you to read over those pages again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're afraid you have to agree with me - chuckles </sarcasm>. Thank you for explaining the AGF issue, as I suppose, to me (who has not been involved in dispute resolution before) a debate over correct application of policy and assuming bad faith looked similar (at least on the talk page about the close). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't mean anything by that; it's just an expression ;)   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since both you and Jess don't think that Keegan was involved I will defer to consensus and drop that matter. You are correct that that page is like a warzone, and closing that RM without a full rational and explanation of how each side applied to policy did not help. N^oformation ^Talk 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not speak to whether I think it was a "good close" in terms of the decision reached, but I do not think it was helpful to close the discussion unilaterally when 3 admins had been agreed upon. The goal of the RM was to come to a community decision and put the drama surrounding this discussion to rest. This close has had the opposite effect, stirring up additional controversy on its own. As such I don't believe it was a "good close" regardless of the decision. It's unlikely a second admin will take part now that Keegan has acted, which is why I asked him to revert his close and abide by the requested closure process. It seems he isn't willing to do that, which means this issue won't be settled, and the whole RM discussion was a waste.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You've provided a diff to a request for a 3 admin close but not evidence such agreement ever existed.Nobody Ent 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The 3 admin request was initially proposed in the RM discussion and supported by a few editors. No one opposed the idea. It was then requested at AN twice. For an admin to bypass that and unilaterally close the discussion, it would appear, he is doing so in opposition to the wishes of the community, which would seem unhelpful in trying to manage a contentious multi-year long dispute.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You requested here, on a wider scale, but did not get consensus for 3 admin close. Nobody Ent 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. What community consensus are you referring to? Firm rules weren't established before the RM that 3 admins would be needed for a close, sure, but we're not a bureaucracy; every editor who commented on the issue before the close, both here and on the talk page, supported 3 admins. No one, anywhere, opposed it. It was not an unreasonable request, given the heated nature of the lengthy dispute, and ignoring it has only flared up tempers and caused the discussion to be further polarized. I don't think that's helpful to the encyclopedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That we would go for a 3 admin close was explicited stated as a seperate comment within the RfC discussion, 2 agreed (me and Dominus Vobisdu [6]) and noone objected, that was about 5 days ago. [7] IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning given for the close directly contradicts a Wikipedia policy that was thoroughly discussed in the RM. That their reasoning runs counter to Wikipedia policy is concerning in and of itself, and the comment that gives the impression that the RM was closed by a vote, not a consensus, adds to this concern. It is deeply concerning that the closing admin stated that "2/3 people to agree on anything" is "the threashhold for promotion on anything here." That the comment was made at all in regards to the closing of the RM is troubling, because the number of editors that comment should not play any factor in how a closing admin judges any consensus. Given that this faulty close is based on a reasoning that is clearly and specifically mentioned in a core Wikipedia policy (WP:RNPOV), this suggests that the closing admin was not able to properly assess the weight of the arguments presented, assuming that they did not close the RM based on a magic "2/3" number as they suggest.

I would recommend that the closing admin reverse his decision, and leave the RM to someone that is able to properly determine consensus based on Wikipedia policy, preferably the 3 admin close that was suggested. Even if the comment left by the closing admin was a mistake, that they understand the policy, the appearance of a lack of understanding that they presented irreparably destroys any appearance of credibility that the closing admin would have otherwise had. (The admin stated "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth" however the comment is contradicted by a core Wikipedia policy, WP:RNPOV: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" which specifically mentions mythology as an example.) If the admin is unwilling to do this, then I suggest that this close by this admin be overturned, as the close itself was based on a reasoning that specifically runs counter Wikipedia policy. If this does not happen, the only result will be yet another RM that repeats the same information yet again, as this is a demonstrably faulty close, and the closing admin has provided reason to believe that the discussion was not properly assessed, and that weight of the arguments given was assessed without regard to Wikipedia policy. If the closing admin did properly close the discussion by determining consensus, then a 3 admin close will come to the same conclusion, with the added benefit of a confidence in the closing decision. - SudoGhost 17:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering that admin actions are as subject to community review as anything else and he's had multiple people ask that he reverse his close, one reason being that he didn't actually explain the closure, he should defer to this request and let this be handled by someone who understands the intricate policy issues involved. Admins should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and considering that he engaged in the conversation by offering an alternative solution before he closed, coupled with the comment regarding a 2/3rds majority, and then the lack of explanation, he should reverse and let this be done properly. If it's not done properly then this debate is just going to continue to wits end, so for the sake of the project please drop the ego and let someone more familiar with this side of WP deal with this. It's not a big deal, we're not on a WP:DEADLINE, and it's better that this be thoroughly vetted before being put to rest. Please allow a three admin panel to discuss and close this.

@Nobody ent: Whether his involvement is minor is subject to opinion but the fact is that before he closed the RM he became at least somewhat involved by offering an opinion on the matter, so he wasn't only acting as an admin at that point. N^oformation ^Talk 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Keegan appears to be treating this as a vote Diff: [8] The supporters feel that the move falls well within our policy on keeping a neutral point of view relating to religion; indeed the word mythology is mentioned there. However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory..

He appears to treat concensus as exactly a weighing up of numbers of votes: 'I'm not allowed to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes" because it the opinions of others in the discussion, not my own, that matter.. If he doesn't try to make objective judgements about the quality of arguments then all we are left with is a vote. This seems completely contrary to WP:CONCENSUS. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here to post essentially the same thing as IRWolfie. I don't think Keegan realizes that he pretty much just admitted that he treated this issue as a vote but he did. He might not have simply done a tally of the votes to make a decision but he made it clear that he considered arguments that were totally out of line with policy in order to make his decision and thus this became a popularity contest. Admins are supposed to enforce policy as written and not make decisions based upon what convinces them personally. So what if Keegan or any other single admin is convinced of a given proposition? Admins aren't asked to close because their opinion on the policy/subject matter is important, admins are supposed to be neutral parties that determine whether arguments are in line with policy or not, and then to enforce the policy that has been determined by community consensus. Keegan didn't do that here, he overstepped his bounds as an admin by using his position to make a close that contradicted not just a number of minor policies but a core pillar. N^oformation ^Talk 00:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Twisting words to fit a point. I can respect that.

My point was the shared opinion that RNPOV does not have to apply to the naming of this article, and suggestions that academically this is not settled as a myth by definition. Policies like this naming convention are not hard, fast rules that must be obeyed on every single article and, conveniently, they fit your opinion. Users in the discussion disagree with your application of policy on this page, and they have the right to battle you and not have a policy shoved down their thoat. It's not numbers at all. It's accepting that people disagree with you and have relevant context to disagree. If you read the discussion, you'll find that several users raised other policy points and reference to whether the term myth is common place among academics. I notice that most of these points were not argued with in the discussion. There was no consensus. If the three of you would like to continue on about the close feel free to do so, but I suggest a break from the conversation might be helpful. Consensus is broadly founded on respecting others' opinions before setting on argument, and I'm finding little of that good faith here. Keegan (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It was argued that academically this term is used non-contentiously by an absolute majority of the source and it was pointed out that those who refuse to use the term tend to come from an apologetic Christian POV. Most of those arguments didn't even start coming in until the issue was posted to WP:CHRISTIANITY. This again demonstrates that you don't understand this issue well enough to close the RM. Do you know this subject? Have you read the sources? I'll say it again: the independent sources refer to Genesis as a creation myth non-contentiously. It appears that the only academic environment in which is contentious to call a story about a talking snake a creation myth is Wikipedia because at a university it would not be a problematic statement. If you followed the arguments as well as you claimed you would have noticed that there was capitulation on the opposing side that creation myth was the correct academic term but that we shouldn't use it anyway. Right now we are not following independent academic sources, we are following Christian apologetic sources. N^oformation ^Talk 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• This precedent effectively means that the word "myth" can now no longer be used in Wikipedia (since assumedly all other religions will now also oppose to have their stories labeled with this word (and actually for the sake of NPOV they shouldn't be called myth if Christianity's myths aren't called that)) with no regard to the number of scholarly sources that use the word. Religious fanaticism won the day, and we moved one step closer to conservapedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ban Aawjgnekr?

All right. I am posting here per an IP's suggestion over at ANI. Aawjgnekr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing serious disruption to the project and ater his indefinite block in 2010 as a vandalism-only account, he has created 47 sock puppets to date. He continually uses these to constantly harass other users and makes contradictory edits to our policies and guidelines and the violations of harrassment and personal attacks are a disgrace. Not to mention that he has participated in a campaign to create hoax and attack articles, as well as mis-nominating articles for speedy deletion. This ongoing abuse by Aawjgnekr has gone far enough, and therefore I propose a full site ban on Aawjgnekr. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)