This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi,
Is there a chance if i could be usurp via Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to the request user, it had the minimum of seven days and there has been no action taken, and i really want to use Terra as it's my username on other wiki site's. Dust Rider Talk 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to alert you i've re-created Dust Rider and added a warning on both the userpage & the talkpage, mainly because a third partly may try and re-create it and may try to vandalise with it, according to wiki policy i should re-create the account as a precaution so i did, i will not use it for editing as this is the user which i'm editing with, i hope this is fine. Terra Talk 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Rejection of mediation understood
I can understand, since the person (Paul) that has been deleting the information from the article has been very hard to deal with. There have been others behind me on the issue, so hopefully, it wont last too much longer. WhammiesWereHere07:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also to note, before I forget, If it were to get to the point where I would have to report Paul for continuous blanking of information, would you be ok with me reporting him. I do realize you had unbanned him, but I dont want to cause trouble with you if there isnt any reason to ban him. Thanks :) WhammiesWereHere09:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Grrrlriot (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Bluemarine is banned from Wikipedia for one year, to run concurrent with the existing indefinite community ban, at which point the community may consider unbanning the user. As a result of the violations of our Biographies of Living People policy that have occured on the article Matt Sanchez, it has been placed on article probation, which requires that editors be especially mindful of content and interaction policies. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been essentially gone for the last couple of months, and I see that were were given a new shiny toy to play with, and a new permissions policy to understand. I have a few questions about RFR:
Can administrators just "promote" somebody and grant rollback, even when it is not requested?
Is there a central long (besides Special:Log/rights) in which we need to log these promotions/demotions?
Are there any special rules regarding promotion/demotion? (I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean they don't exist...)
The article Aristarchus of Samos has been deliberately stripped of both history (Aristarchus's preview of the Galileo persecution) and some key sources (anything connected to the journal DIO) by a contentious career vandal, now dubbed "Holy Hydra" since HH is a heresy-hounding soldier for an antiquated type of Catholicism and has a large array of IP numbers. HH has been cited dozens of times (without evident effect) for inserting inappropriate, personal, and accusatory material in articles and talk pages, particularly those connected to atheists Richard Dawkins and Dennis Rawlins. The Aristarchus article is an important one in the history of astronomy. It is astonishing that simply bringing the article up to date with the latest scholarship should have led to such ugliness. Serious academics will not wish to engage in revert-pingpong with unbalanced vandals. Since Awolf002 is no longer monitoring Aristarchus, the article seems merely to require a new, awake overseer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.145 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the RfC is premature and an overly aggressive gesture towards a new admin who is still finding his feet. I am rarely angered by events on Wikipedia, but am deeply disappointed that some think this RfC is necessary. I shall be commenting in due course. WjBscribe22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
How is it that you are consistently supporting someone who acted so aggressively, with ample assumptions of bad faith, and so on? El_C22:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought you were rather on the look out for possible victims of lynch mobs, El C. If anything you tend to urge on the side of assuming good faith in circumstances when I would have difficulty doing so. I'm unsure why Archtransit has had so little of the benefit of the doubt extended to him. He has had a lot of criticism, sometimes the same comment repeated often by mutliple parties but has been given little time to improve. It seems to me people are eager to jump down his throat. I agreed with issues over the first two problems - the Jehochman block was ridiculous and the first unblock also a bad call. Since then it seems he can do little right. I may keep more of an eye on new admins than most, but I don't find his mistakes since those two bad ones remarkable in the context of others getting used to the job. Btw, I think your question above could have been phrased more politely and in a less leading manner. WjBscribe00:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If my question came across as less than polite, I of course apologize. To reiterate, I feel that I approached Archtransit really gently under the circumstances, with a rather dignified lifeline, and, in turn, he responded in such a negative and disoriented way, it was really a slap in our collective faces. Now, problems persisted afterwards, I can't say I'm surprised to learn that. But I am surprised you, at this stage, maintain "RfC is premature and an overly aggressive gesture towards a new admin." I was a breath away of asking the AC to desysop him then, and I think it's rather likely they would have done so; significantly, also because his response to such a process, I suspect, would have eroded further confidence. What do you propose we do? El_C00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Its this "problems persisted afterwards" bit that I don't see here. What admin actions by Archtransit do you feel have been the problem other the Jehochman and CltFn ones? Frankly the others listed at the other RfC are either (1) sensible decisions or (2) mistakes a lot of newbie admins make. I see improvement but I also see him getting a lot more admins jumping down his throats than similar mistakes made by others. The problem as I see it is that everyone lost confidence in him after those two bad judgment calls and now are seeing error he makes as much more significant. Personally, I think he needs some space with fewer people shouting at him. The situation can then be reviewed in a few weeks barring anything absolutely ridiculous (like the Jehochman block). WjBscribe00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I tried to approach this with an open mind and acknowledging the additional stresses, the misinterpretations of idiosyncratic speech, and so on, but I'm afraid my report is dire. From the an accusatory, third-person, overly-formalist split-response; to an attempt to recast the RfC; to an attempt to invalidate it (to begin with: accusing the author of "contentious editing"); to causing Alison to retract her offer; to a three month pledge which at this point falls short; to a non-incident ani thread; it all goes to reaffirms my original impression that this user is not suited for adminship, and never was. The "problems afterwards" are, again, in themselves, tolerable, but compounded they are more worrisome. The greatest concerns, though, is, as I said above, responses which tend to be negative and disoriented. He often invokes formalist structures, which in itself is a problem; but moreover, it tends to be formalism which is detached from policy and, often, simplistically, geared to cover his tracks. If anything, everything that I have seen about the user since the last incident, including or excluding the RfC, demonstrates he has not drawn lessons and continues, more or less, the same. The sooner he honours his recall pledge, the better. El_C21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I especially stress that last part. If someone states they are open to recall, they need to... be open to recall. The logic is inescapable. Thx. El_C21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please press on Archtransit (he will listen to you) to stick to the RfC format instructions. Over the years, I have been involved in fixing many ones whose format turned clandestine, but rarely have I seen such a mess. El_C22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think now would be a pretty poor time to criticise the way he has formatted the page. The guy is drowning as it is. Faced with a barrage of criticism, he has become defensive - this doesn't surprise me. Is he the best person ever to be given admin rights on this project? Obviously not... But I think the expectations people have are becoming unrealistic and are being unevenly applied across new admins. I still there is an "information overload" problem - too many voices shouting at him with slightly different angles on the problems. In my opinion, this would have been better resolved by the community being more patient and speaking with one voice. I also don't like the cobbled together case, confounding what are in my view separate issues. Ultimately I acknowledge that my take on this is in a minority - the community seems determined to take a scalp in this instance. Frankly, I feel that I'm hitting my head against a brick wall both with Archtransit and is critics. Neither seem to me to listening much at the moment... WjBscribe00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, can I suggest you talk to him, persuade him to at least admit that he's made errors here. He doesn't seem to understand that admitting when you're wrong and fixing the issues is a sign of strength, not weakness. Put his hand up, say mea culpa and agree to mentoring for a fixed period. Sign up to it! Hey - I'll even mentor him myself if folks are okay with that. But ... the biggest stumbling block here is his digging in his heels and not admitting that there's a problem here. Admission + mentor signup, and I'll bet 90% of the people on the RfC will be okay with that. Spell it out and ask him to sign up to mentorship on strict conditions. Thoughts?? - Alison❤00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think mentorship will work here. Not because Arch won't listen - I think if the voices shouting at him are replaced with a couple of users speaking calmly and sensibly he will do so. But because I don't think a lot of users are willing to back off. Every decision he makes that could be questioned will likely result in people turning up on his talkpage with pitchforks - some of the items listed on that RfC are good or borderline calls. Sorry but none of us could operate in those circumstances. WjBscribe16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're asking for too much; far too much is not adding up for me to agree with your position. El_C02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The evidence against him is not such that I think ArbCom would desysop him. If they did, he would have the option of either asking them for the tools back or going through RfA. Personally I am tempted to recommend that he refer this to ArbCom, who I hope would look objectively at his decisions in the context of conduct by other admins. WjBscribe16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I know it must be a bummer seeing your nominee go off the rails so quickly and completely, but there's no shame in making a mistake. We're all human; we can't avoid making mistakes. What we can do is try to recognize and correct these mistakes as quickly as we can. After his bizarrely unhelpful response to the RFC, it looks like he lost any remaining confidence the community had in him. Do you think it would help him decide to step down if you told him it was the right thing to do? He so far doesn't seem to be listening to the ever-growing stack of other people telling him this. Friday(talk)15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't try and decide how I may be feeling - if I want you to know, I'll tell you. Whatever disappointment I may privately harbour as to how Archtransit has done as an admin isn't the issue here. I could easily have cut him lose and joined the mob calling for his head with very little loss of face. But no one has persuaded me that he has misused his admin tools in such a way as to deserve desysopping. His response to the RfC was non standard but looks to me an attempt to get across that a number of "unrelated" charges have been cobbled together - some of those incidents are not bad admin decisions IMO. The unblock of Fairtrade in particular was brave, but JzG's block was excessive and would I think have been overturned by ArbCom (probably admonishing admins who declined the unblock as in the Matthew Hoffman case). That JzG did not oppose the unblock speaks volumes. Fairtrade has behaved well since the unblock. But that too is made to look like a bad decision. The ever growing stack is the problem - there was a complete lack of helpful people pointing him the right way. It seems to me that some people have (from the outset) been only interested in his resignation. Your call to Kingturtle to get a steward to desysop him only emphasises that. I am thoroughly disheartened to see so many convinced that only desysopping is a valid outcome. This process has been incredibly ugly and is making me seriously wonder why I contribute so much time here. WjBscribe16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, I see you criticising the way the RfC was brought forward. Since that was my work, well, here I am, ready to discuss whatever you want. I can acknowledge it might have been better if I'd structured that case list by problem areas or degrees of severity or something, rather than just chronologically as I did - but beyond that, I currently don't really see much wrong with it. Fut.Perf.☼18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I have 2 concerns:
Structure of the RfC. There seems to have been a view that all decisions by Archtransit that are questionable are bad. I think the block of Fairtrade was a valid and brave decision - an outcome I think ArbCom would have supported had the matter come to them. The block of the userpage vandal is pretty standard. Yet its all lumped together as evidence. It gives me the feeling that people are only looking for mistakes, not considering whether some decisions were good (or at least, defensible). The IP block issues are ones I see all the time in new admins (and some experienced ones) - they just require a friendly note pointing the admin in the right direction, not to be lumped together as RfC evidence.
Timing of the RfC. I just think this was rushed. Before he's been an admin as long as a month, its decided he should quit? I expected to see people work with Arch clamly and quietly- helping him to get better. Instead all I saw was growing numbers of people shouting at him over most decisions he took and now an RfC. I don't think the guy has been given much of a chance to improve, in fact I don't think he's been given any chance at all.
I used to think that "losing community confidence" should be a reason for someone to resign adminship. I'm not so sure any more - in this case community confidence seems to have been lost in a subjective manner, without there being objectively much wrong with his use of the admin tools (certainly not after that first week). WjBscribe16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. As for the structure of the RfC, I think I clarified that on the talkpage, couple of days ago. Maybe there's one thing missing in the "evidence" as written, but which is pretty much on top of everybody's minds among those who've been watching him, and that's his various comments in discussing his decisions. I'm not sure if you saw all of those. I didn't make an exhaustive list of all those remarks that showed what I felt was a very fundamentally wrong understanding of what adminship and wiki policy is about. I simply didn't have the time to do that. I believe, though, that many of the people who have commented on the RfC are aware of those, and that's what feeds the criticism. For instance, the reason I decided to list those not-really-bad-but-merely-unnecessary IP blocks, was because I had seen him say things earlier that implied he was out to block or unblock someone, cost what may. He seemed to be actively out looking for opportunities to test his block buttons. But the thing that I have come to feel is really the most serious issue is his very marked tendency of indulging the worst of problem users: advocating in favour of obvious socks, obvious trolls, obvious edit-warriors and other disruptive elements, often coupled with very rude slaps in the faces of those legitimate users who've had to counter the disruption. There is a clear pattern here. I also notice a decidedly sub-par level of technical competence, certainly below what I would normally expect from a user I'd vote for on an RFA. Fut.Perf.☼15:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi David - my internet connection is pretty useless today as is struggling with reuploading those images due to the size of the files. Could you reupload them to your prefered titles? I will then delete them at their current titles. Why the developers still haven't given us the ability to move images to new titles I have no idea, but reuploading and deleting the old names is still the only way to do it... WjBscribe14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Has WJBscribe ever done anything to make you doubt him? He's been an outstanding bureaucrat, since his promotion. I'm puzzled by why this question has even been asked. It's not fair on him at all. --Deskana(talk)00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought one of the general standards of the RfB process, which WJBscribe passed near-unanimously, was an ability to be impartial, and more importantly, making a decision if one is or isn't impartial and acting along those lines. Daniel (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that certain of WJBscribe's recent actions have been sufficient to sow some seeds of doubt as to his impartiality, so Pedro's question is perhaps not so surprising. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is grossly offensive. While I disagree strongly with WjB's stance on Archtransit, to question his integrity is completely outrageous. He made a mistake with Arch (in my view). He's still an outstanding admin, an even better bureaucrat, and has impeccable integrity. I ask you to retract and refactor your above statement. BellwetherBC03:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I haven't criticised your opinion, so please don't criticise mine just because it doesn't match yours. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not my opinion, it's fact. WjB is a good admin, and one of the best 'crats we have. And if you continue to insult his integrity, I'll continue to criticize your "opinion." BellwetherBC04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Goodness me, what a storm in a teacup. If WJB had simply said "of course" at that RfA all would have been well. And now this morning I find this mess on his talk page. I'm sorry I bothered now. I really can't see why this is "unfair" to quote Deskana. WJB has, as has been rightly pointed out, exercised his bureaucratic abilities superbly since taking on the role. He has also been extremly active at closing RfA's since becoming a bureaucrat, as well as his excellent work at Changing User Names. Given his heavy involvement at RfA and his vigorous support of this candidate I can't see why it is unfair for me to ask WJB to make a small note to the effect that he would not be closing the RfA. What was so wrong with that? Any how, apologies for what has now disintegrated from a minor thing into a load of OMGDRAMA..... sadly.... I'd certainly not have asked this if I'd known. Perhaps a bit of understanding that I made this request in good faith and not for some obscure reason of pointery would have helped.... Pedro : Chat 08:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting you asked in bad faith, but it seems to me that other did read your question in the same way I did. Standard practice is that bureaucrats don't close RfAs in which they have participated, I indicated in my RfB that I strongly agreed with that practice. In Seresin's RfA, I strongly supported the candidate and questioned several opposers. The RfA is likely to require an exercise of judgment on the part of the closing bureaucrat. Do you think I would therefore close it? Your asking the question suggests that you think I might act improperly - that you needed specific reassurance that I wouldn't act improperly. Frankly, as I have never seen another bureaucrat asked the same question, I did think it was a little rude to demand that reassurance and apparently I wasn't the only one. I would describe it as drama, I think people were trying to help you understand why I might not see your question in the way you intend and to express their confidence (or lack of it) in my judgment. WjBscribe15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. (I asumme you've missed the 'nt of the word would above BTW) On reflection it would be like me stating "I do not intend to close this AFD" with every AFD comment I made. I'm wrong, and apologise unreservedly for my bad faith and misjudgement. Pedro : Chat 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
(clarified) Thanks, but I don't think that you asked in bad faith, just that you didn't really consider how the request might sound. I don't think you'd have asked had the AFD analogy occured to you at the time. No hard feelings :-). WjBscribe16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my analogy should have occured to me last night; once again, apologies, but I think I'll skip the trip up North. Not sure I can find my passport anyhow :) Pedro : Chat 16:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
RE:Archiving
Hey thanks for letting me know. I was looking at the page for a bit and saw that there hadn't been any archives by the bot recently, so I kinda thought it wasn't working, and decided to go ahead and do it myself. Now that you point it out, I guess it does make sense to leave them up for a bit. Once again, thanks for giving me the heads up. Icestorm815 • Talk00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, dude
Wanna be my best friend? I have no friends, and everybody hates me. <:'( I'm a pathetic speciman, only here in my dark, cold chamber every waking hour.
Here at the request to approve SquelchBot you agreed that the "politics need to be sorted out" before the bot can be approved. BetaCommand has closed off the currently active discussion, with additionally a personal attack on me, unjustified from my comment that the issued have not been addressed. BetaCommand's user page does not indicate that he is an admin, beauracrat, and anything other than a normal editor. I don't feel that his action was appropriate. If I remove the archive template, it would likely start an escalation. I feel that you were saying that the bot is not approved. So I would appreciate your eyes on that page, to remove the archive template, so discussion can proceed. Let me know if I misunderstood your comment. Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not a Bcrat or an admin, but I am a member of the bot approval group it is my responcibility to handle bot approvals. It was not ment to be a personal attack. it was meant to say that your personal non-related complaints elsewhere. βcommand18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You are free to, and I wish you would alter your comments. My "personal axe to grind" as you put it, is that the blacklist process is not producing the desired results and is or could be grieviously side-tracked for issues to which it should not be geared. Ignoring my serious problem isn't going to make it go away. Several other editors have made similar comments, both at that page and elsewhere in-project. Your concluding remarks on that page are unjustified. Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Bureaucrat involvement in the Bot approvals process is largely limited to the granting of Bot flags. As SquelchBot is to run without a Bot flag, that rather removes my role in the matter. The approval of Bots as a general matter is by community consensus handled by the Bot approvals groups (BAG), of which Betacommand is a member and I am not. If you want the opinion of other BAG members on a specific approval, I would suggest raising the concern at WT:BAG.
Betacommand, perhaps you could refactor your closing comment? Bot approval is supposed to be a fairly formal process, such remarks don't really add to that and I think rewording it might help de-escalate things. WjBscribe01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Animal testing mediation
Hi there, WJBscribe, would it be possible for you to add some links on the mediation page to the article RfCs that SlimVirgin referred to in her submission? I had a look for these but couldn't find them, and I'd like to read them before we get started. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, since this case will hopefully be picked up by a mediator soon, would it be possible for me to look these over before we begin? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tim, sorry I haven't been much use here. I have a little more time now and to speed things up I'm going to mediate this case myself (provided everyone's OK with that). I'll try and catch up quickly on discussions so far. WjBscribe22:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi MaxHarmony, thanks for the offer but I think you're a little new to be attempting a formal mediation with quite complex issues. Usually MedCom cases are assigned to non-committee members only where they already have experience of mediating disputes on Wikipedia. Might I suggest if you want to get involved in mediation work that you have a look at informal mediation? See WP:MEDCAB. WjBscribe22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Your reply at the RfC
After your insulting reply at the RfC, I've stricken all my "protest votes", and will not participate further. I'd encourage you to look at the totality of the dispute, and not each individual case. This overall view (combined with the fact that a response such as AT's is unprecedented) leads me to believe you were unintentionally mistaken in nominating him for adminship. I think if you step back from your closeness to the dispute, you'll see what the rest of us see: an admin who has far overstepped appropriate use of the tools, especially given his answers regarding DYK at his RfA. BellwetherBC16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at my comments today, some do seem rather rude. For that I apologise and have struck several parts [2]. Yesterday was a fairly bad day (starting with an icy shower as the boiler in my flat seems to have stopped working) but that shouldn't have spilled over here. I still think given it was obvious Archtransit was finding the process pretty overwhelming and having difficulty expressing his response, your flippant comment in each of the sections was more likely to inflame things than help. People seem to see the form of his response as some sort of rebellion against established custom, which seems to me another example of people seeing what he does as automatically negative without considering the other explanation - that this was the manner that seemed to him best to get his approach across when faced with a fairly formal procedure calling into question his conduct. However, I acknowledge that you have been acting in good faith and have removed those comments that I think read as suggesting otherwise.
As to your other comment, I don't think I have ever suggested that I don't think Archtransit has extended himseld beyond what I understood he would be doing as an admin very quickly. That does disappoint me, but I still don't see either a convincing case that his abuse of admin tools is so great that he should be forced to relinquish them and believe that Wikipedia would benefit more from Archtransit continuing to improve in the job than being forced out of it. WjBscribe15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On your points regarding AT, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Where you see minor mistakes, I see a clear pattern of continually misusing his tools, and refusing to respond well to constructive criticism. Where you see a good-faith attempt to respond to the RfC, I see dissembling by attempting to treat the issue like 10 different disputes, when the certifiers of the RfC clearly viewed it as a disturbing pattern best illustrated by the totality of the ten cases. I must say that I've not been around long enough to have ever seen an administrator go "off-the-rails" so spectacularly and so quickly.
As for your retracting the more strident statements, I really appreciate that. I've always respected you greatly, and was disappointed when it seemed as if you were attacking me over what I felt was a good-faith protest of an out-of-order RfC response.
As an aside, how do you view his "compromise" refactoring of the entire RfC, in which he caricatures and misconstrues the views of those certifying the initial RfC as "Archtransit is bad"? I think that was the tipping point for many who had been willing to extend even more good-faith to Arch. What's your view on that? BellwetherBC15:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure what you're talking about there - can't see anything like that on the page. Could you give me a link or diff to point me in the right direction. WjBscribe15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think ElC moved it to the talkpage, as it so cluttered the main page of the RfC as to make it nearly unreadable. I'll check and try to provide a diff shortly. BellwetherBC21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link to the thread at the RfC talkpage where ElC moved the strange "alternate version" that Arch initially tried to place on the main RfC page. BellwetherBC03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, WJB; just so I can understand the process(es) for future references, why was Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Animal testing accepted for mediation (the second to last step in dispute resolution) when there have been no prior steps in dispute resolution? Certainly RfCs, third opinion, etc. might have helped? Am I misunderstanding the process? It's discouraging that no one else can weigh in there, as the ownership issues get in the way, and any appeals to any other place (Reliable sources noticeboard) are labeled "inappropriate", so RfC or 3O might have been a reasonable way to bring independent opinions. Why the next to last step in the DR process without attempts at other methods? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, when 4 respected editors sign a mediation request that says "Frequent discussion and arguments on Talk:Animal testing since August 2007, with no resolution, along with several article RfCs. See this archive," I assume that RfCs have indeed happened. Article RfCs can be a little difficult to find as a third party as they have often just meant that a particuar section of the talkpage is flagged up for third party input. Third opinion requests pose a similar problem - its hard to tell if a third party just turned up on the talkpage or if a specific request for a third opinion was made. I hope I have not been mislead. SlimVirgin and TimVickers are overwhelmingly the most active people in editing that article so their coming to some agreement seems important. I have flagged up on the talkpage of the mediation whether outside input (ie. RfC) might help and we could expand the list of parties but its usually up to those involved in a dispute whether they want to resolve it betwen themselves (through some from of mediation) or get other editors to comment. I hope that clarifies things. WjBscribe15:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, WJB; I just wanted to make sure I understood the dispute resolution process for my own reference. It seems well established at this point that there were no previous attempts at dispute resolution (except Tim's request to the Reliable sources noticeboard); perhaps the Mediation page request form could be modified to include diffs demonstrating previous attempts? I think that is a part of the other dispute resolution processes. Hopefully things will move forward amicably now and with an end to the personalization, misrepresentation, personal attacks, and failure to assume good faith that has characterized the discussion so far, focusing instead on content and sources. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The article RfCs that SlimVirgin referred to have never happened, to my, Crum375, or Rockpocket's knowledge. For future reference, you can check for RFCbot or Betacommandbot edits to a talkpage using this tool. However, despite this unfortunate start, I am still willing to give the mediation a go and hope we can define what the problem is in the near future! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:LGBT topics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Looks like the content was later cut and pasted into Portal:LGBT/Topics. Not sure about attribution requirements here. Perhaps a history merge would be best, then delete the old template? It was never as I recall used elsewhere than in the Portal. WjBscribe15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Missing deletion log entry
Hi Will, you don't know why there is no deletion log entry for WPSI do you? You closed the RFD entry and it has been deleted, but I cannot find the log entry anywhere. I just wanted to check before I raise it elsewhere. Thanks, mattbr13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know whether or not the block has any merit, but his unblock requests and other material he had posted on his talk page (and which I have removed) were completely incoherent, so I recommended him to calm down and make another request later. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Update: He seems to have really calmed down and made a coherent unblock request by e-mail; upon your asurance that it's not a sockpuppet account, I have unblocked him. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Why revert another OUTSIDE point of view?
Why did you revert this? It would seen that to honor NPOV, Wikipedia shouldn't rely so heavily on the WMF to adjudicate such a conflicted issue for itself! Please think about it, and perhaps restore the link with a less bitey context? -- 72.94.165.206 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't push your luck. The idea of Wikipedia Review as neutral coverage is pretty funny. Now stop trolling please before you get blocked. WjBscribe12:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Dead Leaves
Hello, I noticed I belive it was you that deleted the "Dead Leaves" article. I think it was a mistake that it was deleted. I belve I propsed to delete the section on US airing... but I think I did it wrong and the whole article was deleted, not the section related to the US airing.
Sorry for all these edits to my own note, i am new, and still learning how to contribute. It was my mistake deleting the article, and since I can't undo it, I am asking for help. Thanks. Corvato (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Corvato
Looking at the logs for Dead Leaves, it was deleted not by me but by Jj137. As it was deleted thorugh the WP:PROD process (no objection within 5 days of a deletion tag being added) it is no problem to restore it (especially as you added the tag...). Prod tags should be used where you propose the entire article be deleted, feel free to simply remove sections you believe shouldn't be an article. WjBscribe20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I need a clarification. I've got an issue that appears to be more about user behavior than about a specific content issue. Should it go through Mediation or is mediation strictly for content issues?
Specifically, I'm being stonewalled in the Illegal immigration to the United States article. I've had my edits reverted by several editors without being given specific objections to my edits (though, believe me, I've asked). I've been told that I deleted sourced content, but when I asked what sourced content I removed, I didn't get an answer. I've had sourced content I added removed and been told that it was from a non-notable source (the source is Dr. George Grayson whose bio states
He has written 20 books and monographs on international affairs, made 125 research trips to Latin America, and lectures regularly at the U.S. Department of State..He is a senior associate at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, D.C. and an associate scholar of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. Grayson is the Class of 1938 Professor of Government.[1]
Which seems pretty significant to me on an issue of Latin American-US relations (in this case, Illegal Immigration from Mexico). I've had the same article removed on the claim that it was an Op-Ed (while the editor who removed it added a source on another article which he knew to be an Op-Ed). In short, it looks like an issue of article ownership.
Mediation is usually reserved for content, rather than conduct matters. At this stage in your dispute, might I suggest you ask for outside opinion on the matter? You could try asking for a third opinion at WP:3O or start a request for comment by following the instructions here. WjBscribe01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust the community has placed in me. —Remember the dot(talk)18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Any chance you could take a look at performing this name change now? The arbcom case has closed and I wouldn't mind trying to put it to sleep once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you delete all of those Earthbendingmaster redirects? All of my sub-pages were automatically moved, and left redirects, do you think you could delete the sub-page redirects? You can find them in your contributions log, of course, I am sure you know how to find them. Thanks. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted redirects from the subpages. As they're linked from your sigs, I think the redirects from your old user and user talk page should stay unless there's a good reason to deleted them. WjBscribe01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Scribe, since you know the situation, can you help? My troll is back and again taking aim at my photos, this time Mike Farrell and now he is involving himself in this Guy Fawkes issue. He is banned. Can you also see if thisUser:SBPrakash is also the same person? That's the "came out of nowhere" Farrell contributor. I believe a Checkuser will show it is again my troll. --DavidShankbone17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I'll stop filing out the request. Does the account edit from the same range as the IP? If so, I would be willing to block on behaviour... WjBscribe17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- Do you know of any mediators or administrators who have Russian language skills? There's a dispute occurring in a WikiProject that hinges on users disputing translations or other uses of Russian phrases. I can't get my head around it because I don't have the skills, and no one else has come forward. Last, please reply to my userpage if you will -- I'm a law student writing my first serious brief, and my head is close to explosion. Cheers! Aelfthrytha (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Given the substantial slagging off from last time, I do this with a sense of due trepidation. But courtesy dictates I advise you of this. Feel free to rollback and/or block me for the temerity in editing anoher editors (and indeed a 'crat's) talk page comments. I await the ensuing AN / RFC / BLOCK ..... :)Pedro : Chat 19:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This sock puppetry situation seems to be roommates. We have to figure out a process for handling this, because it's coming up frequently. A bad faith actor could use this as a convenient excuse, yet there are legitimate situations too. It's very hard to tell the difference. JehochmanTalk00:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to have a clear policy that this sort of thing needs to be declared in advance. Users need to let other's know that their family, partners, flatmates etc are also editing if there's going to be any overlap. I'd think a userpage note would be OK in most circumstances - if that's a problem, they could let ArbCom know privately. But I don't like the way people seem to only declare these things after checkusers are run... WjBscribe00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case we had tag team edit warring. Whether they are one person or two people who know each other doesn't really matter. Yes, I agree, we need to clarify policy so people have realistic expectations, and "It's my roommate" doesn't become the Wikipedia equivalent of "The dog ate my homework." JehochmanTalk00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!"
Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.
WjBscribeThank you for playing senior janitor and letting me know I have a mop on its way.
"The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler
Is that really a good idea? Th ArbCom case will take weeks if not months. Relisting seems a pretty poor result - they should surely have been speedily closed immediately and the nominator advised not to nominate similar articles. Relisting them perpetually will only create more work for AfD closers. ArbCom is not going to rule on the fate of these articles as that is a matter of content not conduct so it must be better to have fresh discussions after the injunction is lifted. Is there a central discussion somewhere about this practice of constantly relisting these discussions? WjBscribe01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There is not a central discussion, but it has been discussed on the injunction itself, where the template has been transcluded. It has also been discussed in MANY talk pages, but only in informal quippets. It just became the defacto policy after I created the template and it was adopted by others. I do have a central discussion in the works now at delrev for another one. It is on the Feb. 17 WP:DRV page. JERRYtalkcontribs03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear WJBscribe, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind closure of my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (29/5/5).
Thank you for closing my RFA. And now that I am a sysop, I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
A compromise on the talk page was reached regarding a better wording and, if you notice, I changed the template to represent the current situation. Until the said policy passes with consensus as per a widely held poll, I'm going to keep re-adding the template to serve as a reminder that one needs to happen. -Halo (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether the template represents the current situation or not isn't the point, there's obviously not a consensus to have a template at all. I'm sorry to be blunt, but continue edit warring and you'll get blocked. WjBscribe21:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So you'd rather a page misrepresent the truth (i.e. that RFR isn't liable to change in the future?)? The point isn't that several people, including administrators, subverted the processes? Oh, and please don't revert my talk page - it's considered extremely impolite to so. -Halo (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth adding that I've only reverted the current version of the template, which was a compromise, twice after it remained on the page for a long time, so accusing me of "persistent edit warring" where I've attempted to compromise seems more than a bit unfair. -Halo (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous.
Thanks Pedro : Chat for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real...
Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: Thanks Will for processing this RfA. If I have any queries that I need a 'crat opinion from, I'll come knocking!
Apology
Hi WjBscribe, a while ago I left a snarky comment on your talkpage, and I would like to apologise. The situation at the time was both frustrating and deeply upsetting to me, but I shouldn't have vented that frustration on you. Please accept my apologies, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem at all - I understand that things would have been stressful at the time. I'm glad everything got straightened out, in hindsight it could probably have be dealt with better by all involved. I appreciate the apology. WjBscribe00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to add to the workload here WJBscribe, I know you don't need it. Creating an account but missed that the email address was missing an O in .com -- any chance you could perform a usurp to allow that IP access to the account? —αlεx•mullεr19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi WjB - I assume you've seen the news about Archtransit - I want to just say that you are not responsible for what happened and no one blames you at all. Thanks for all the work you do and the way you do it. Avruch T 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thirded. This is my first experience of such a situation, so I'm still somewhat of a novice when it comes to bans. Further saddening because of the abuse of trust Archtransit deliberately conducted. Regards, Rudget.17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The guy seems to have pulled something of a professional con job, and on looking at his pre-RfA behaviour, there was no red flags whatsoever. Orderinchaos10:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Now lets get on with figuring out exactly how many accounts this guy had and what he was up to with them... WjBscribe01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A long time ago, you gave me a WikiCookie because I was upset over some issues with RFCN. Well, I guess you're disappointed with this event with Archtransit, and are probably upset with how it turned out. I'd like to give you this WikiCookie to help cheer you up. You're an excellent Wikipedian, WJBscribe, and I don't believe you deserved what happened. Best wishes to you. Acalamari18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how often you check your e-mail, so I'd thought I'd let you know here that I sent you one. I can see you're a bit busy, so I understand if you don't get back to me in a while. Wishing you the best, Icestorm815 • Talk04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I will reply shortly - sorry for the delay but I seem to have recieved quite a lot of emails that needs answering in the last few days. WjBscribe07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello! :) As you know, the Kosovo article has become a warzone concerning the actual status of Kosovo after it's declaration of independence on 17 February 2008 and it's recognition by the big EU states as well as USA, while it's in the process of being recognized by most of the EU. The problem that we are having in this topic is the opening sentence, and the Discussion Page has not been of much help because most of the solutions provided favor one side over the other. I have come up with 2 scenarios that are equally neutral and that don't tip the scale on either side, however I believe admin support is needed in order to cement a favorable opening line, because editors are switching it back and forth into their prefered and mostly biased or unfair versions. My proposals are:
1. Opening sentence avoids the words "partially recognized" as well as "disputed by Serbia" and terms Kosovo: a landlocked republic. The "partially recognized" part is explained in the second paragraph of the presentation, and the "dispute by Serbia" or other countries is explained in the third paragraph.
2. If it's necessary for the opening line to include the recognition and the dispute, then both "partially recognized" and "disputed by Serbia" should be incorporated. That way it takes into account both the partial recognition and it's objection as well.
However that's where the problem is. Certain biased members term Kosovo a "self-proclaimed" republic. The truth of the matter is that alot of other countries proclaim the same thing by recognizing Kosovo. So Kosovo cannot be just "self-proclaimed" because it is "multi-proclaimed". Certain editors refuse to accept the reality of the situation however, and I believe admin intervention is needed on this issue so that it does not create a continous conflict in editting which denies the reality of the situation and dangerously touches the boundaries of propaganda. I hope that your support and insight on this matter will help in difusing some of this controversy and hopefully freeze an acceptable "opening line" that considers all the elements. I would strongly recommend the 2 options I gave because they are the most neutral out of all other proposals so far. Exo (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in getting involved with the substance of this dispute - no doubt plenty of other editors will choose to do so. My concern is simply that the article should remain open to editing. Given that edit warring seems likely, there only option really available to admins to achieve this is to block users who do so (whereas fully protecting the page would be the more usual approach). As long as you articulate your points calmly and sensibly on the talkpage rather than changing back to your prefered version because you believe you are right, you shouldn't have any problems. WjBscribe07:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:User wikipedia/Checkuser requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
If no one's using it anymore I guess it can be deleted. People seem keener on creating custom userboxes in their userspace these days it would seem. WjBscribe07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The first IP was already blocked, I blocked a second that had posted the same thing since. If this carries on, I'll semi-protect the page though that'll probably just move this elsewhere... Will try and reply to your email soon, I seem to have a bit of a backlog of emails from the last few days to sort through. WjBscribe06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, he's staved off for a moment. Problem is, he's posting the exact same thing on more tha one page, i.e. here, and on David' talkpage until it was semi-protected. Not sure what we can do about that, we can't semi-protect every page David visits... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't suppose the world will now come to an end, but I was working from a stale cache as I had been looking at Scarian's contributions for a while so I added my support after you closed it. What is the procedure now? Do I just go back and remove my comment? SilkTork *What's YOUR point?00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, standard practice is to remove comments made after the close. It doesn't affect outcomes in this case but it seems best to revert all comments made after the close than to develop a more nuanced (and therefore disputable) criteria as to when this should happen. WjBscribe06:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What tasks people can help with is summarised at Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance#Tasks. Its probably a good idea to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Changing usernames guidelines so you have an idea of the sorts of things bureaucrats are considering when deciding whether to perform renames. If you have questions, some of the more active current clerks should be able to explain what their approach is at the moment. I do find it helpful if one clerk could flag up all the issues with a request in one post, rather than their being a build up of many notes as new things are spotted. WjBscribe06:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was later told that I erred in inserting User:Testbed as a party to this request. I guess I should have deleted his name. You never know in this system what is a recoverable problem and what isn't. Apparently this one wasn't. I did delete his name. Can it be reconsidered? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
hi i know im on another persons page part but i dunoo how to do my own anyway can you return the George Romero Living dead Charecters please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.176.111 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to give me a little more information before I can help. I need the exact title of the page the article was at if I'm to find it. WjBscribe22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Well aparently it says you deleated
George A. Romero's living dead series Characters so if youd be so kind because i like reading it for some reason lol but can you bring it back please it was deleated on 20:00, 10 February 2008 and it is on George Romero Living Dead Series
Hi, I was User:SomethingFamiliar but I have lost my password. Is it possible to somehow get it back or create a new password? If you need proof that I am the proper user, the IPs should match for both accounts. Thank you so much! 134.84.96.142 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately your last edit was too long ago for your IP information to be in the system, so I can't even ask a checkuser to confirm that it edited from the IP you are currently using. There's not much I can offer really - it isn't possible to reset passwords if you didn't have an email enabled on the account. If you were able to show you owned the account, I could rename it to something else and allow you to have a new account take over that name, but that seems unlikely to be possible without the IP data. I think you're going to have to create a new account, sorry about that... WjBscribe04:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I totally support your decision and reasoning. I was going to say something in talk about how I could see the candidate get the mop without normal consensus range. Good call. BusterD (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to express my support of this decision - the candidate has extenuating circumstances with this RfA, and you could not possibly stick to the normal parameters when deciding whether or not to promote - other things had to be factored in and you have provided an excellent explanation of your actions. Ryan Postlethwaite02:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am appalled and disenfranchised by your closure of the RFA of a fellow MedCom chairwhich has, I believe, set a new record for behavior from a bureaucrat outside our community norms. Please tell me, Scribe, for future reference, which opinions I am allowed to have. The 52 opposes and 14 neutrals would no doubt like a little more clarification. The fact is that the opposition had clear reasons which you had no right to ignore, without any discussion at that! --JayHenry (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As a fellow MedCom member, I'd like to make it clear that ^demon is no longer active as a mediator, but on and off wiki. There's no COI interest here. Given the WJB is the only (really) active crat, he had to determine this on his own. Your comments were valid - but this was a different situation to a normal RfA and therefore it would be impossible to evaluate it as such. Ryan Postlethwaite02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Gutsy call Scribe. I'm not sure what I would have done with this one if I were a bcat. I think you called it you saw it and your rationale has merit. Get your firesuit out for the inevitable firestorm that's coming from the opposers. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, fair enough and struck, though I think if Scribe had a different background he would understand the concerns editors have with admins who don't touch content. Scribe, I find your reasoning in the close specious at best. "Similarly there were a number focused on the fact that ^demon's actions had resulted in drama, but causing drama and being untrustworthy to exercise sysop responsibilities are two separate things." Wow! Since when have the bureaucrats been empowered to disenfranchise opinions on the grounds that creating drama is irrelevant to the admin tools, especially when some of the documented cases of concern actually involved the admin tools? What's more, and as a bureaucrat you should know this, when an RFA is clearly failing within our community norms, editors who would otherwise oppose refrain from piling on. I do this regularly. Had you indicated that you felt the opposition were making "illegitimate" arguments, the fair thing would have been for you to provide some advanced notice of this. --JayHenry (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Amended again to note that the Carnildo3 close would be considered by most editors to be the further outside our norms. My point remains: if we are playing by a different set of rules, do participating editors not have the right to know what the parameters of discussion are? I'm not trying to raise a firestorm -- I think this is an extremely fair question. --JayHenry (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I was aware when I made my determination of the consensus in that RfA that it was open to very legitimate critcism. My view was that either outcome would be imperfect and that there would be no shortage of valid criticism for either close decision. I accept that this outcome shares some of the problems of the Carnildo3 decision but I would point out some of the difference - Carnildo had been desysopped for misconduct and had no right to request the tools be restored to him, the opposition to Carnildo was pretty weighty based on the misconduct that had lead to his being desysopped, the crats in that case apparently factored in an expectation from ArbCom that Carnildo should regain the tools. Those factors distinguish it from this case. My decision here was based on what I continue to perceive the community mandate for bureaucrats to be - where consensus is unclear, apply one's best judgment to establish it from analysis the points made by particpants. Given the nature of the concerns being raised by many of the opposers and the fact that ^demon was entitled to ask for the tools back, I believe a consensus existed to promote. That does not mean I thought all opposition problematic, or that I completely disregarded a single comment, merely that I accorded less weight to those issues I identified in my close. I agree that your comments and questions here are legitimate and asked in the best of faith. I hope you recognise that my decision, much as it has "stunned and disappointed" you, was in my opinion the correct determination. I will listen to comments made here and respond to questions. Discussion is no bad thing, and will no doubt shape how I deal with similar situations in future should I continue to have the community's confidence. WjBscribe03:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The closure of ^demon's RfA was a tough call to make, and you provided a long and detailed reason for your close. I trust your judgment, WJBscribe. Acalamari02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm also troubled by this; I don't know how many opposition comments would have been required for this not to have happened, but the reason I didn't add my opposition was because I thought the (lack of) consensus was already clear. –Outriggr§03:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is rather difficult for someone closing a discussion to factor in the opinions of those who thought about contributing to the discussion but chose not to for whatever reason. The issue here wasn't purely about the number of comments, but the points they were making and the context. If you have an opinion on a subject, I recommend you voice it, otherwise you are going to badly placed if the outcome goes against your expectations. WjBscribe03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The point here is that if an RFA closure is going to have a different standard for successful closure, then it would be nice to know beforehand. I don't make a habit of piling on opposition when something clearly is not going to gain consensus. –Outriggr§04:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I accept your point to some extent, but the standard is always the same - a consensus that the user should be promoted. Both the number and substance of comments are factors in determining that. I don't think it unreasonable to have expected participants to realise that in context of someone who had previously held and voluntarily relinquished adminship (and could therefore have just asked for it back) there would be an expectation that persuasive reasons would be looked for to deny returning admin rights. WjBscribe04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Cecropia had, at least as I understood it, expressed precisely the opposite belief. That if an admin chose to go through a reconfirmation request, then both they and the community should have an expectation that this was to be treated as a standard procedures of RFA. I'm not saying that you can't disagree with Cecropia, but I don't see why we should have expected a different standard to have been applied, or what was so unpersuasive in the reasoning. None of these were opposes that I'd ever seen identified in a previous context as unpersuasive (especially the concerns about drama) except perhaps those opposes based on the fact that it was a reconfirmation. --JayHenry (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Scribe, sorry to blather on, but I want to add one more comment. This is not about ^demon for me at this point. He's an admin again, I wish him luck and bear him no ill will. My concern now is with you and I hope you dignify these concerns with a response. In your own RFB you gave your word to the community that if you were closing outside of expectations -- and I don't see how you could honestly say this was anything other than far outside expectations -- "In most cases, input from other crats should be sought to confirm that the case is appropriate for such a departure." Would you please explain why you felt that this was such a case where the opinions of the other 'crats were irrelevant. I didn't support your RFB with the understanding that you had been less than candid with us, nor that you would start acting as the sole authority on whether or not to +sysop. Indeed, if oppose opinions do not matter in a reconfirmation RFA, why not speedily promote to at least spare us the embarrassment of having had our opinions marked as discounted? --JayHenry (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there aren't any crats that are truly active at the moment - who could he honestly have turned to? WJBscribe now does just about all the work himself, and from past experience when less active bureaucrats were asked to chip in, they failed to do so making it very difficult indeed. The best thing I can suggest is for us to promote some new bureaucrats who are going to be active so if a similar situation in the future, WJBsribe has someone he can discuss decisions with, rather than being forced into a corner and having to make the decision himself. Ryan Postlethwaite03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
JayHenry, I think you posted this additional point while I was replying to your point above. To answer your question, I did look for other crats during the 3 hours while I had the discussion on hold reading through the discussion - as none were editing during that period I also looked on IRC but was unable to locate a crat able to help me make the determination. Given that I had by then formed a view as to the consensus in the discussion, I went ahead and closed it. Ryan is perhaps too charitable in his comment however, there are other competent crats who (whilst not presently very active) could have commented on the matter eventually had it been brought to their attention. There was no very good reason why the decision could not have been drawn out longer, though it wouldn't necessarily have produced a clearer or more satisfactory outcome. Although there are mixed feelings about the value these "crat chats" have had in the past, the point about seeking further input when moving outside of expectations was a good one when I made it then and remains one now - if there is something I could perhaps have done better in hindsight, that is probably it. Thank you for the comment about ^demon - his role here is now to do the best job he can with he regained tools and I hope his colleagues will be supportive. Blame for the close if there is blame to be had lies here alone. WjBscribe03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, well, if I was the guy that nominated this fella, I'd probably be living at the foot of the cross and not be so bold, but that's just me. :-) Honestly I was going to vote for demon but decided not to vote at all; however, I think you missed the statement that this RfA made. Why is it that some reconfirmations are so tough? Is it because everyone that got their fair use pictures deleted comes to oppose, or is it because some admins undergo a certain type of personality change? I think it takes some self-awareness and effort to fully consider this possibility. Nevertheless, I concede I may be well off base in my analysis and it may not be welcome here at all (if that be the case, I apologize). Take care, daveh4h03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to express my concern as to the way of this closure. I do not believe that it should have been made without appropriate discussion by bureaucrats and others at appropriate forums (If such has occurred, I retract that, I may have missed it), and I think that such may have been unwise. However, as you are the bureaucrat, I understand that this discretion has been given to you, so I will not attempt to influence you. I also understand your reasoning as provided on the RFA. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk07:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't say that I really agree with the closure, as it sort of blurs the line between reconfirmation RfAs and regular ones, although I guess that division already existed.. I agree with earlier comments by Outriggr on not commenting as the discussion seemed to have reached a level of consensus, but as you said the only blame for that is with me. Besides this, though, I do trust your judgment, WJBscribe and respect the closing rationale you issued. Your description of being unable to find advise does speak to the need for further bureaucrats, though. SorryGuy Talk 07:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I came here to let you know that I thought that that was a very good, well-thought out, and well explained closure. There's always so much drama and negativity that we encounter, that I thought it would be nice to share some sincere positivity. I was and am gratified to see that I wasn't the only one. I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc3710:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this was a mistake and will only cause trouble in the future. It also means calls for users not to 'pile on' in opposition to a candidate will be ignored although, presumably, had 150 people opposed here their wishes would have been disregarded because they didn't chime with those of the single person who made the decision. I'm aware that the process is not a vote but a rationale which says the voice of anyone who's had a bad experience with the candidate should be ignored for that reason is, to say the least, a strange one. Nick mallory (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, you should have consulted with another 'crat before making such a decision. Had you waited another day there's a good chance you could have confered with Deskana or WarofDreams. Please, going forward, take the extra time to consult before pulling the trigger on such an unusual case. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If you were going to disregard the RFA, you should have closed it and promoted as soon as it opened. This worst-of-both-worlds approach doesn't make any sense to me at all. I think you should not promote anyone else. You have poor judgement. Friday(talk)16:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Friday. Actually the approach of simply closing all unnecessary reconfirmation RfAs had no occured to me, thank you for raising it - I shall give it some thought. As to the rest, your opinion is noted. WjBscribe20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be brief and say that I am surprised at some of the rather personal criticism, but I believe you made the right choice - a case of where it was right to ignore the '70%' boundary. It was a brave move and showed good personal judgement, instead of mindless vote-counting. I do however disagree with your assertion that 'causing drama' should not be a reason to deny the tools - it is, if the candidate is at fault (although on this occasion, on balance of the evidence I believe he was not). I am of the opinion that you did the right thing, although perhaps suspending the RfA after the 7-day period to discuss the closure with other bureaucrats may in hindsight have been the community's preferred course of action. Regards. EJF (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you were well within your rights to close it as you did. I did want to mention a couple of my thoughts, though. I think you're wise to admit that more discussion could have happened; especially in potentially controversial circumstances like these, the hurry to get the thing closed is probably less than the need to be thorough. I'm one of the people who might have opposed if I'd thought it might pass, but I agree that that's my own fault--it's not like I was unaware that these things are sometimes closed outside of the usual range. I would echo EJF's feeling on discounting the drama-related opposes, the idea that drama isn't relevant is something I'd more expect to see in a support vote than in a closing decision. But I've always been wowed by your wisdom and judgment and your willingness to explain your reasoning, and I think you're doing an excellent job. delldot on a public computertalk05:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To me, this close is disappointing and worrying. RfA is not exclusively numerical, but there is an expectation that candidates with less than 70% support will not be promoted. WjBscribe acknowledged as much at his RfB three months ago, where he assured participants that if he was uncertain about a controversial decision, he "would open up the matter for input from other bureaucrats". He says above that after looking, he "was unable to locate a crat able to help [him] make the determination" whether to promote ^demon. Yet his edit history shows that after putting the RfA on hold, he did not post at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, at the talk page of any bureaucrat, or indeed anywhere at all, before unilaterally closing the discussion as successful at 63%. Had the percentage fallen within the usual promotion range, WjBscribe's discretion would carry more weight. But it was so low that users here who did not comment at the RfA have indicated they might have opposed, except that the lack of consensus already seemed clear. It is troubling to see Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat decide so radically and single-handedly to the contrary. Tim Smith (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No time to comment in detail, but I would like to say I agree with "The point here is that if an RFA closure is going to have a different standard for successful closure, then it would be nice to know beforehand." and "I can't say that I really agree with the closure, as it sort of blurs the line between reconfirmation RfAs and regular ones". Even though you didn't have time (I don't think the closure was that urgent) to talk with other bureaucrats, could you start a general discussion on reconfirmation RFAs? I think it would help. For a start, does anyone have a list of reconfirmation RFAs? Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A slightly tangential comment
A while ago I have commented that our 'crats do not have the balls for controversial decisions (this was related to an adminbot RfA, I think). I think you might've just proven an opposite movement (which is certainly a good thing on this otherwise stagnant project). Cheers, Миша1318:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC) PS: This comment is unrelated to my opinion on what the outcome of ^demon's RfA should be.
To anyone who says this close will bring problems in the future, could you please discuss said problems with me? I'm very curious as to what problems I will be causing, exactly. ^demon[omg plz]15:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they meant you would be causing problems, merely that the passing of an RfA with this much opposition would set a problematic precedent--the problem, obviously, being that editors may feel their votes won't be taken into account in a consistent or fair manner.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's a vote. Only in exceptional circumstances is it anything but a vote. See what happens when stuff is not closed as a vote? Majorly (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you added a null edit to User talk:Office-admin so that RedirectCleanupBot would not delete the broken redirect; however, it still appears in the list of broken redirects. I don't know why the broken redirect is for, but I would suggest a null edit to the User page instead, so that the redirect is not broken anymore — otherwise people will probably look at it over and over (and probably delete it at some point). Cheers, Schutz (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to fix it - I'm not sure what User:FT2 created that redirect for. I just wanted to make sure it was dealt with by a human admin (who will presumably check with him) rather than be automatically deleted by RedirectCleanupBot (which deletes all broken redirects that have only one edit in their page history). WjBscribe20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello WJBScribe. Since you are on the Mediation Committee, I thought I'd approach you. I realize that the Mediation Committee isn't supposed to resolve content disputes. But here we have a content dispute directly arising from a misinterpretation of policy. A large number of editors are (in my humble opinion) misinterpreting WP:FRINGE to pretend that a very real dispute over the "waterboarding is torture" lead sentence, with several prominent adherents on both sides (see Sept. 2003 comments by Jimbo Wales in WP:WEIGHT), does not exist or has been resolved in favor of "waterboarding is torture." In my opinion, it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Several other editors agree, but we're being indef blocked one at a time by admins who have adopted the "waterboarding is torture" position. I believe that "waterboarding is torture" is also being used as cover for America bashing by certain editors, with far too much frequency and far too much gusto.
It's been to ArbCom, but they didn't really do anything except make it easier for "waterboarding is torture" admins to get rid of people who have disagreed with them (via article probation). I have already received a warning on my User Talk page for some very mild comments. I propose an unorthodox solution: binding mediation moderated by the entire Arbitration Committee, with all Waterboarding editors who participate agreeing to abide by the majority vote of the Mediation Committee. I am placing the same message on the Talk page of AGK. Please help us resolve this dispute in an amicable fashion, and repair what I believe to be an outrageous WP:NPOV violation in the lead sentence. Neutral Good (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This really lies outside what I suspect the Mediation Committee can help with given the conduct issues in this case. Mediation is reserved for content matters and requires all the parties to agree to to mediation. If the ArbCom article probation proves not to be effective, the article will need to be refered to them again and they are likely to be more willing to opt for more targetted sanction against individual editors. I would point out that only uninvolved administrators should be enforcing the probation - those who have involved themselves in the debate should not be doing so. On a personal level, I don't have a problem with the opening sentence - but then I am legally trained and have quite a keen interest in human rights matters. Probably a little too biased to involve myself in resolving this dispute I'm afraid. WjBscribe07:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this section so that you can more easily spot my response. Since Mediation (but not ArbCom) addresses content issues, and since ArbCom (but not Mediation) addresses conduct issues, I believe that a lot of time has been wasted while a blatant WP:NPOV violation sits there for months, in the first six words of what is undoubtedly one of the most frequently read articles on Wikipedia these days. Since you have acknowledged your bias (and thank you for your candor in admitting that -- it's so very rare among admins I've encountered), I would appreciate your recusal. As an attorney, I'm sure you're aware that the canon of professional ethics requires you to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I believe a similar canon should guide all administrators here. Neutral Good (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You can request that someone mediates this dispute at WP:RFM. If all parties agree to mediation, a mediator who has no preformed view of the content issue will take the case - it certainly won't be me in the circumstances. WjBscribe20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone mentioned your name over at RS/N in connection with the Lucas photo, [5]. I suggested a resolution to the problem which will dispel any doubt as to Lucas's real name, [6] and [7]. A certified copy of Lucas's university transcript would be so much easier than the other solutions proposed.--72.76.9.74 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I browse Wikipedia and I saw many people with a picture with the content of Wikipedia, like "Disinformation by the CIA", "Spam", "Actual Useful info" something like that. I never really take a good look at it but I want to see it again, so do you know any user page which still have that picture. Thanks in advance. 71.157.141.109 (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say I agree with your call regarding ^demon's recent reconfirmation RfA and, more importantly, I'd like to thank you for making a difficult call. You knew your decision was going to be controversial, and you still made it; many in your position would have taken the easy way out, even if they knew it was the wrong choice. And for what it's worth, I'm impartial in this, having not commented on the RfA (honestly, I couldn't make up my mind). Cheers, faithless(speak)09:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Quick question
If RFA is a vote, as people are so fond of saying, why is there any discussion at all? Why do so many people get their knickers in a twist when someone opposes without a reason?
If RFA is not a vote, why shouldn't you weigh arguments? Do people honestly believe that a well thought out response should get the same consideration as "Oppose because I hate Mondays"? And don't we trust you as a b'cat to make those distinctions? Just wondering. --Kbdank7117:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well RfA isn't a vote - there's never been a consensus that it is one and general agreement that there is some discretion in assessing the consensus of an RfA has existed from the outset. In practice, successful RfAs have a lot more people suporting them than opposing them. Numbers are a significant element in determining consensus. The fact that most RfAs pass or fail in a way that can be represented numerically leads to a lot of people saying it is in fact a vote, which isn't very helpful as it gives people false expectations.
As to the second point, I think it is right that opposes along the lines of "Won't support any candidate with red hair", "User edits articles on spiders, I hate spiders so don't think they should be an admin" are given no great weight in the consensus determining process. The problem is rationales of less clear validity - sometimes one can look to the context of the discussion (or responses from those who participated in it to a given point) for guidance. Ultimately any exercise of discretion will be open to legitimate criticism as presumably for there to be discretion both outcomes must have been valid to some extent. People may have issues with the judgment of the person exercising the discretion, or feel that a given case was an inappropriate one for a discretion to be exercised. WjBscribe23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Question, how does this apply to supports? I see supports with "seems good" and "nominated people for rfa" and they seem to recieve full count despite no substance to the support?--Cube lurker (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Often people assume support without further comment to be "per nom". You can also look at it that a supporter can be taken to be saying that the candidate has all the necessary requirements to becoming an adminship. Opposers are saying that some element(s) of that is lacking - the onus has generally been on them to say what exactly it is that a candidate lacks. Some of this no doubt flows from the idea that adminship should not be a big deal. Bare opposition still has some meaning - that the candidates lacks the confidence of the opposers, but it contributes nothing else to the discussion. Fuller support reasons can be more useful when closing though - especially if they directly tackle comments that have been made in opposition. Similarly users can express reluctance in supporting - self describing it as weak or recognising that opposers have raised valid points, which could also be taken into account where consensus is hard to determine. WjBscribe02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your viewpoint, yet question it. The nom says this user's great (no diffs) , multiple opposers opposers say wait look at diff, dff, diff, diff. Yet later supporters are given a free pass to be "per nom". Guess it's the system but seems broken to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Not quite sure what happened at User talk:98.192.87.200 but you left a block message without actually blocking the IP :-) I blocked it, since there was further vandalism coming from that address. Thought you'd want to know. Best, Gwernol21:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what happened. I blocked this IP and must have assumed that edit was to its own talkpage so left the message on the wrong talkpage. Thanks for sorting out the other IP. WjBscribe21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is, quite literally, speciousness. Superficially appealing comments that have truly bizarre implications for how RFA should be approached. I'm a bit boggled and still trying to sort it out. I've reorganized the remaining points from above in a clean thread. I apologize if this line of questioning seems harsh, but you are de facto the entire bureaucrat system as well as a lawyer, you can handle it :)
Are you, a bureaucrat, unaware that when people believe a consensus is clear, they will refrain from piling on? Your response above indicates you did not know this, or that editors should not do this. At what point should an editor know not to pile on?
You say "my determination of consensus in this RfA strays to some extent from expected outcomes". You tried to contact some other 'crats knowing that it was Friday night in America and early Saturday morning in Europe and after two hours decided you'd go it alone, even though you indicated at your RFB you would act otherwise. You felt it was a clear enough call that more time could not be spent? And you believe the support section would be upset if you closed a conventionally failed RFA as a failure?
"A reconfirmation RfA of someone who relinquished their sysop access in uncontroversial circumstances and could have requested that it be restored at any point." Are you saying that those who participate at RFA should henceforth be aware that a different set of standards will be applied to reconfirmation requests? Or are you saying it's not a real RFA. And if it's not a real RFA, why not just speedily close the discussion and promote? Why allow a charade?
You say, "The onus is on opposers to demonstrate more than simple disagreement." What level of disagreement must be demonstrated and how rigorously? Does this characterization of "simple disagreement" actually apply to a single member of the oppose section? Further, if comments early in a discussion provide a body of evidence, is it not implicit that people who comment below the evidence also find this evidence at least somewhat compelling, even if they don't explicitly state every incident above them which they find to be of concern? That people were upset because he deleted their categories or images -- a canard.
Your comment in the closure indicates that causing drama is not to you a valid reason to oppose a candidate for adminship. Is that a serious opinion? Drama from admins is non-controversially a concern on our site. If anything, threads on WT:RFA, which I'm sure you've read, suggest that drama/civility is one of the best indicators for someone who is likely to be a problematic administrator. Is any level of drama and disruption acceptable? Or going forward should a detailed argument on why drama-causing admins are bad be provided with any opposition comments about drama? I genuinely thought it was understood why drama and incivility are bad.
"That involvement in unpopular work has played its part in the discussion is something picked up on by both supporting and opposing participants." This is a depressing statement, in that the attitude is deleterious to the wiki, though I'll concede you're not alone in voicing it. The fact is that there are lots of administrators capable of doing any type of "unpopular work" without gaining large oppositions. Yet we continue to harbor this (destructive) fantasy that it is the area of work rather than the conduct of the admin, that is the problem. This is patently and demonstrably false, as with every contentious area on Wiki there are admins who conduct their work with grace and broad support. I'm frustrated with seeing "area of work" used as an excuse for unacceptable conduct. In the context of requests for user rights: consider Cecropia's second RFB with near unanimous support after he spent several years working in RFA (possibly the most contentious area of all!), or W.marsh's reconfirmation though he was highly active and opinionated at AFD. Why is a demonstrably false line of reasoning persuasive?
"I factored in those who were neutral - in this case being unwilling or able to raise objection to the restoration of tools to someone in a position to request them." This is a biased view of a neutral comment. In this case and every case a neutral is being unwilling or able to raise objection and being unwilling or able to support. Why treat it only as if it's the former case? Meanwhile you ignore the support comments that acknowledge the opposes. Apparently in this direction it's an irrelevant consideration?
I want to add a caveat to my own participation. When I support, I do so with the understanding that my support is predicated on a closure within the norms of our community, with no surprise interpretations for those with whom I disagree. None of us should be here to play a realpolitik, my side wins at any cost. I want fairness more than I want things to follow my own particular point of view.
Almost all your reasoning is novel, and some of it quite startling upon examination. Please note, I'm not arguing that consensus is numbers nor WikiLawyering -- I've not cited a single policy or guideline. But I see so many editors who could just cry in frustration at decisions like this. Yet it happens again and again and again and again. Scribe, all we want is a system that can be understood. That attempts to be fair and equitable. That produces generally reliable outcomes. That's just not so insufferably arbitrary. Thus 8. To have concerns that have never been before identified as weak suddenly labeled "unpersuasive" and new standards introduced on the fly... is this not the very definition of arbitrary? Is it not the definition of caprice? --JayHenry (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Some points: (1) It doesn't happen again and again and again. This particular situation (a promote without clear consensus) is extraordinarily rare. (2) WjBScribe was selected and has enjoyed the overwhelming support of the community for precisely this role and these types of decisions. Most RfA closes are clear, and could be done by bot. We have bureaucrats for the others. (3) You should be aware, if you aren't already, that WjB does not have the ability to undo this decision. You need ArbCom for that, or the recall process. What you are working for here, then, is that WjB either change his view or resign his role. Just to be clear on the stakes. Avruch T 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Avruch, I supported Scribe and continue to and he has said he welcomes questions about his decision. I'm working for clarification as he unilaterally created a wide array of new community norms last night and I want to understand the consequences of our brave new world. I do not want him to resign, and I don't want ^demon's tools taken away as I've stated above. I want an explanation. I outlined the numerous ways in which his statement is startling, and it's reasonable for me to seek clarification on these points, especially since he invited it. --JayHenry (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
JayHenry sums things up in admirably succinct fashion. This decision sets a number of very strange precedents. Neutral voices now count as supports? Opposition voices cannot 'simply disagree' while arguments based on evidence of the candidate's conduct can be ignored because such evidence merely proves the candidate works in 'controversial' areas? Existing conventions on thresholds for numbers for and against can simply be ignored for particular people without prior warning? In short this was closed on the basis that reconfirmation RfAs are different in nature from ordinary RfAs and so have different rules. If that's going to be the case from now on perhaps those rules should be made clear and the RfAs put in a different section? Nick mallory (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I too have to agree with JayHenry here, especially with point 6. I did not support or oppose the RfA but I do not see how the closure reflects community opinion and consensus. I find it odd that concerns like the candidate causing drama are not considered substantial or relevant arguments against granting adminship. I think this is the kind of action I had in mind when I wrote this. Call it a judgment, bureaucratic discretion, whatever... just don't call it community "consensus". :-/ - TwoOars08:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
And how can opposes that are "regretful" or "reluctant" be considered any less than regular opposes? That the opposer thinks that the candidate should be opposed in spite of all the admiration they bear towards the candidate (hence the regret) means the concerns are pretty serious. And what Nick mallory said about the neutrals. - TwoOars08:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In agreeance with the above this RFA and the ensuing conversation apply. I supported that candidate then, but also agreed there was no consensus. The point being, that the opposers and neutrals where working to say, in summary, "Not now but soon" - indeed Sorry Guy was "promoted" at his subsequent RfA. The point here being the reverse - many editors will qualify their opposes, supports or neutrals because of "community norms" or simply "not to hurt a candidates feelings". I find in ^demons RfA many examples of support that are weak and neutrals that are just not fully commited to oppose, as well as many opposes who are simply trying to be diplomatic in their typing but not in their opinion. I also find myself in agreeance that your stance/statements regarding pile-ons are problematic. In short WP:AGF and a wish not to harm feelings have to stop somewhere and for those that carry good faith and "niceness" on "too far" brings about a time for 'crats to recognise this. I have no animosity to ^demon but you have created a strange precedent without, IMHO, due regard to human nature. Just my 2p. Pedro : Chat 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply
To answer some of the points above having reflected over the last few days. (1) Yes, I am aware (and was aware when I closed that RfA) that people may have not participated because they thought they could predict the outcome. Having criticised the Carnildo close partly for that reason, it was a consideration that weighed heaviliy with me. But in this case, I do not believe that was a legitinate expectation - RfA is known not to be a vote and I believe the strength of opposition (or lack thereof) and the fact that this was a reconfirmation should have indicated to people that the consensus was uncertain and that they should participate if they wanted to play a hand in forming it. Ultimately it is not practical to try and second guess who did not participate in an RfA and what contribution they might have made to it. (2) I acknowledge that putting the decision on hold for a day or two for wider consultation may have been a better approach, though the results of past attempts at this have been mixed. (3) I'm pointing out the background circumstances to the request - consensus could not in my opinion be considered in a vaccuum - the circumstances of the request were in my opinion important and worth restating. All informed participants would have been aware that this was a reconfirmation RfA.
(4/5) In general, I think there is a necessity to show misconduct - use of the tools in an illegitimate manner, not just one with which people disagreed with or that resulted in controversy. The same would apply in any RfA if it were an editorial decision in question - simply having disagreed with a candidate is not in of itself a power reason to say they would make a poor administrator. (6) It is unfortunately true that entirely proper use of admin tools can result in a lot of opposition - I don't think the example of reconfirmed users are particularly good case studies for such issues. (7) I think it is correct to characterise neutral comments differently where someone is requesting a status where the default position is that they are entitled to it than where they are not. I did not treat the neutrals as if they were supports, though factoring their comments in the context did form a part of my decision. (8) My only goal was and is to make the best determination of consensus I can. I believe I did so in the case of ^demon's RfA.
I do not believe my reasoning novel, though to some extent the situation was being only the second time (after Danny) that the consensus for resysopping someone who had relinquished adminship voluntarily was unclear. No doubt some are frustrated by the decision, people would have been frustrated had I determined no consensus were present. My popularity isn't something I factor in to the decision making process - nor (however much I might regret it) is whether I will lose the confidence of some people whose judgment I respect. I do not think my close is as radical as some seem to think. It is very much confined to narrow facts and builds on established precedent in determining consensus. Whilst I respect the comments brought up and do not regard it as a perfect outcome, I continue to believe that it was the correct decision. WjBscribe06:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I can tell you've put a lot of thought into this and I appreciate that. For points 1-3 I do see that this is indeed an unusual circumstance that puts bureaucrats in a difficult position, because the community has strongly divergent views about reconfirmation Requests. It would be good if we could develop a community standard for this process, but this seems unlikely at this point. It would, however, be unfair to blame 'crats for the community's schizophrenia. Similarly, your point on (7) is reasonable, the status quo is different, and we know now to expect this.
I still feel strongly about 4-6 though. I really think the drama, demonstrated here in abundance, is what makes Wikipedia unappealing. In a discussion with the good Dr. Glasgow I wrote of the pass admins are given regarding drama. "I don't think this is trivial. I think it's perhaps the most broken part of our entire adminship culture. [...] Serious people -- and we need more serious people at Wikipedia -- don't like to be roughed up, pointlessly, by churlish technocrats, especially those who don't even know how to look up a reference or write a paragraph. I can't quantify the number of professors, grad students, doctors, enthusiasts, bibliophiles who came here intrigued -- excited even! -- encountered the rudeness behind the scenes; who decided, quietly, that it wasn't worth it. No retired banner, no parting speech, no good-bye notes on talk. Just one day their contributions stopped coming and nobody notices the Featured Articles that they never wrote."
Next week is my two year anniversary on Wikipedia, and this is the conclusion of very serious thought over that period. I would like this belief to have due weight, because I'm certainly not alone on this one and I believe the conclusion valid. Pages can be undeleted, editors unblocked. But the arrogant cannot be humbled unless they choose (which they rarely do). If we fixed the drama, arrogance and disrespect, mistakes with the admin tools would be like a spelling error: one click to correct, a polite note on the talk page (in difficult situations, perhaps long notes :), then back to building an encyclopedia. --JayHenry (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Red Barnstar
For always being there when called, and for offering good, reasoned wisdom. You're one of the project's "we can't ever lose him" guys. DavidShankbone03:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deaf to good advice
In this, I mean "deaf" as in unable to take in crucial information, rather than "Deaf," meaning a member of a hearing-impaired community. And perhaps I should mention at the outset, you've encountered me before as User:Ooperhoofd -- in 2007. My reasons for changing names have only an oblique relationship to what follows here. Although not particularly relevant for you to know, the name change does make sense in a peculiar context of Japanese era names (nengō) and the subjects which most occupy my attention as a Wikipedia editor.
Japanese calligraphy by Satow. The kanji reads "敬和" (Kei-Wa), literally "Respect and harmony".
In a problem with User:Bueller 007 some months ago, Administrator/User:Nihonjoe (日本穣) offered me the following sentence as a piece of good advice -- transparently rational, unassailably correct, plain, self-evident:
"In order to accomplish anything here, you're going to have to learn to work with people who may not be immediately or apparently amiable, or who may be outright caustic in all their dealings with everyone."
Obviously, I was able to recognize the utility of this admonition; and I took the right step in copying it and saving it in a sand-box for later reference; but (alas), I reckon I just don't "get it" yet. I'm just not able to take the next step which involves applying this maxim as a guide for figuring out what to do in awkward circumstances.
If there is a process-oriented implication here, I can't grasp it. I need to develop a strategy which is more effective and appropriate than I have thus far been able to develop in the Wikipedia context.
My 2007 strategies were extraordinarily successful in dealing with people like User:Fg2 and User:Oda Mari who each persuaded me that I was wrong in a fundamental way. My approach was less successful with a diverse range of others -- like User:Jefu and User:WhisperToMe, but the exchange of views was demonstrably constructive. I was satisfied that my arguments, presentation, and responses were consistent and authentic.
In contrast, the few like User:Bueller 007 represent a different problem-set entirely. My frustration and annoyance are genuine, instinctive, authentic; but this gives me no clue as to how to marshal a creative, consistent, and effective strategy out of the education and experiences I might otherwise bring to bear.
For my purposes, I am forced to assess Nihonjoe's words as "merely" wise like the Sybils of Delphi or Cumae. In other words: I have no worries that his words will be proved incorrect. In fact, I'm sure he's right -- absolutely right about everything, but that isn't very helpful.
I don't need to learn everything the hard way, but his responses -- and those of others -- condemn me to that uncertain fate. In time, we all muddle through somehow, but that demonstrable surety doesn't serve me very well on a day-to-day basis.
Drafting a complaint
I'm preparing to draft a formal complaint -- a demand for mediation; but one thing particularly holds me back. In response to a question which I did not intend as rhetorical, I discovered that all I could likely hope to gain from a resort to WP:WQA would be something as hollow, meaningless, and impractical as a reprimand. I myself have no fears of being slapped across knuckles with a ruler, and the suggestion that I might need to be concerned about such an odd prospect strikes me as a bit wry; but the implication that there's nothing to be learned by anyone is troublesome. That would be pointless a priori.
No, no, no -- I am only prepared to invest time in a complaint process which seems likely to inform my future actions, my future responses to who-knows-what. In this context, what is to be made of the following:
User:HelloAnnyong: You yourself sent me to WP:WQA -- now the unanticipated sequelae begin to accumulate. Have you so little faith in the resolution process that you think it won't work when all is said and done? Think again.--Tenmei (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I do have faith in the process, but I'm also separating out article content from user conduct. I'll say it again: WQA is not going to bring the content resolution that you want; it only deals with user conduct, and it will only end in one or both of you being reprimanded. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The problems and opportunities of the present are wasted unless learned experience is used to ameliorate the stumbling blocks which are inevitable in a joint-venture like Wikipedia. Now that I actually put the notion into words, the sentence sounds too lofty; but there you have it.
Where in the Request for Mediation format is the place to emphasize that I'm actually looking for something specific, practical, useful? I am ultimately interested in figuring out how to resolve my own problems as they arise -- not so much interested in having them solved for me by someone else. In the Wikipedia setting especially, I would have thought that this point-of-view would be seen as axiomatic, but apparently not ....
In this context, Administrator/User:LordAmeth asked a pertinent question yesterday:
My reply summarizes a complaint about something that just isn't going away:
LordAmeth -- "Your own words are unassailable. When you encounter editors who are having a dispute or confrontation or whatever, you self-consciously say to yourself: "I'm here to offer a third opinion, to bring another voice into the discussion, to turn attention away from personal attacks and back to the matter at hand, so that we all, together, can try to find a resolution." Whether this is identified as strategy, tactic or gambit, I should imagine that this is the best and most efficacious intervention you can be reasonably expected to offer. However, this tried-and-proven prescription for creating a kind of intra-personal alchemy which allows everyone to move on is doomed to failure sometimes -- inevitable statistical reality. I didn't (and still don't) know how to present a catalog of factors which would allow you or anyone else to distinguish that non-standard instance in which the normal calming-the-waters gesture just doesn't work. I have found that unfortunate exception-to-the-rule to be the case with User:Bueller 007. Even if we hypothesize that I have only become inexplicably more and more sensitive, and if we assume that User:Bueller 007 is not getting more abusive, abrasive, corrosive, or whatever -- even then, my reserves of tolerance and resilience have grown steadily more and more frayed ...." -- Tenmei (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line: Other efforts to ask for help have not worked for me. The primary outcome I'm looking for is something practical, useful, maybe even ordinary. My central concerns have to do with me -- I want to come away with an unspecified something which will help me better handle unanticipated problems or difficulties in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I'm not sure mediation is what you're looking for here. Mediation is aimed at resolving issues of content that editors are having difficulty agreeing upon and requires the agrement of all those involved in the dispute to move forwards. It seems to me that if you want to "draft a complaint", you are looking more to resolve a matter of user conduct. If that is the case, the most appropriate process for you would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. That does however require two or more people to have tried to resolve the dispute with the editor about whom comment is being sought. If you want to get more people involved in the matter, other forms of requests for comment possible - on articles or policies. You could also look for a third opinion on whatever you are having trouble agreeing upon. I hope that's of some help, I confess I'm having a little trouble understanding what it is you are looking for. WjBscribe21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Your feedback is truly good enough for now. You're absolutely on-point about one thing: I'm having a little trouble understanding what it is I'm looking for; but I'm persuaded that even several wrong steps are better than simply hoping this is one of those things which fades away naturally as busy people move on to other things .... --Tenmei (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:Renameuser
What was wrong with my version? The second template was actually intended to be transcluded rather than subst'ed, and if that was causing any problems I'd like to know so I can fix them properly. —Random83218:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, then I misunderstood the intention. I can't really see a reason for those templates to be transcluded - they seem to work fine in their current form and are I suspect easier for clerks to check that everything is right if the code is set out. What advantage do you think transclusion creates? WjBscribe00:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the intent is that if the current or requested username needs to be changed (for example, the requester has the requested name "NEW Someusername"), it can be changed in only one place - I've seen this happen and some of the instances of the name are fixed but others are still incorrect. Also, I had some other thoughts for later on that would require transclusion - see User:Random832/CHU —Random83219:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Will, just passing by. I had a slightly odd username request come by me while I was on IRC today, hence I'm posting here rather than CHU because I'd like you personally to deal with it. It was declined back in 2006, while the user was told to just recreate the other account, which they did, but I thought renames in this situation should go ahead (edit count).
Basically, can you move ProductBox (talk·contribs) to "ProductBox II" or similar, and then move Wikikob (talk·contribs) to "ProductBox"? They are both operated by the same user, confirmed by IRC, plus I'll have the user confirm this request here while logged into both accounts. There's the relevant links below.
Sorry for coming to your talk page rather than CHU, but as I said above, this is an unusual request and unfortunately it seems like said process spun this user about a while back and has only complicated things now.
Quick, let's delete the front page! 
reverse.jpg){kind=link}