Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4

Request to the parties

Would the parties mind holding off making this a live "active" RfC for a few more days? I'd like to attempt to discuss this also. (Of course, should that discussion fail, which I'm sincerely hoping it won't, this RfC won't need to be recreated - but I would like it to stay inactive until then). Would the filing parties at least be OK with that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that I'd mind as I don't see the point. RfC/U is a dispute resolution mechanism involving the entire community. If you can work it out on the sideline while we go about it here, more power to you, but several editors, including two admins, have gotten nowhere with an admin who's previously been to ArbCom over a year ago for abusing the very same tools. The community needs to discuss it with dab. I encourage you to discuss it with dab any way you can, here or separately. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your request. Our concerns have been fully described, we have previously attempted to resolve it with Dab, and we have followed appropriate procedure - it is a certified RFC/U. Above all, though, as you can see from the Desired Outcomes, we're just asking Dab to (a) acknowledge current policy and (b) be more willing to engage with criticism, even if he doesn't agree with it. There is no request or desire (as the first outside comment implies) to rake over the Telugu incident itself in great detail and determine who was - with 20/20 hindsight - right. Dab can settle this very easily, with minimal drama. I mean is asking an admin to clarify that he understands and respects policy that controversial? Rd232 ^talk 08:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Except you also write that dab bit the newbie. That's not accurate, because there's no newbie. Newbies can't find vandalism templates, and if they do, they don't subst: them, and if they do THAT, they CERTAINLY don't pipe the article name in. If the RFC merely focused on the fact he semied the article when he should have just given the IP a 24 hour break for edits that were not designed to improve an encyclopedia as opposed to further some lunatic ethnic dispute, then I would have endorsed your statment. Hipocrite (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you're entitled to your view (personally, I think a relative newbie with some tech experience or wiki experience elsewhere might well do it). But I find it a bit curious because regardless of whether Dab saw him as a newbie or as a sock (and regardless of which is actually true), he didn't make any appropriate communication. Plus, "edits that were not designed to improve an encyclopedia"? Really? Have you looked at the diffs provided? Rd232 ^talk 09:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, mentioning that the IP piped the article name is the sort of thing I meant with "20/20 hindsight". It might turn out the IP should have been blocked. How's that going to prove that WP:SEMI doesn't say what it says? Rd232 ^talk 09:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who professes "wiki experience elsewhere" is a liar, unless "elsewhere" means the wikipedia of the language they actually speak in their home. I've reviewed the IP's edits. Because I'm not experienced in whatever ethnic war he's engaged in, but I do know that when a user is editing topics about the subcontinent they are far more likely than not to either be a repulsive spammer or an equally repulsive nationalist, I take the word of the individual who has a history of not damaging an encyclopedia in ethnic/racial/whatever wars over the sub-continent that his edits were not-constructive, except for the collateral damage of second to third. Again, it's vandalism to say that the major contributing factor to the Peloponnesian War was the sword wielding skeletons, and we should have some deference to real professionals in the field to determine when we are facing WP:RANDY. Hipocrite (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth responding to you with the attitude professed in your first sentence. Yes, there are Wikipedias in other languages, and many other wikis too. And I said relative newcomer for a reason. Nonetheless, I'm moved to ask, how is this anything like sword-wielding skeletons? Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I fully appreciate the concerns and frustration that has led to this coming here, and am glad procedure was followed to alert the problem, but in some ways, I'm not surprised by dab's response - it is not that difficult to misinterpret Doug's comment at 10:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC) [1] as opening all wounds. From experience, banned users have been returning to WikiProject India articles and making the smallest changes, which can be paradoxically constructive and unconstructive. Problem users are a problem and puppetry is becoming a more complex problem. It would be overly naiive to assume that controversy and drama will not catch up if this RfC goes further (given how famous the related arb case was), and that the outcome for this project (and the WikiProject) may turn too sour given the way this has escalated. Great contributors are having less and less incentive to stick around the project when problem editing cannot be dealt with adequately due to process, and they end up being the ones surrounded by drama and controversy. If it is possible to resolve this amicably without further involvement, then yes, I'd prefer that course of action. Should my reading of this situation be remotely right, and we go ahead with this anyway, I have 0% confidence that going through this will have a positive outcome for the project, which is why my involvement is conditional to delisting this for a few days - I am not willing to waste my time. If my reading was off, or it doesn't work out, this will be here (ready to re-list) anyway. This, of course, also depends on if he is ready to talk with me about it. If the filing parties want to still press ahead, I won't insist - that's their choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  If Dab had sought to justify his actions (in the ANI thread, or at least later in the user talk discussion) on the grounds, say, that he was dealing with a known disruptive user, there being a whole background he omitted to explain in edit summary or anywhere else - well that would be understandable, if still not ideal. However, his refusal to acknowledge the concerns expressed (i.e. either justify the action properly, or admit error), and refusal to clarify that he does understand and respect the relevant policies, as well as his general attitude in dealing with both the IP and others over the issue, are sufficiently problematic that an RFC/U is justified. Now, this is an attempt to resolve this amicably, and the only action required of Doug is to acknowledge various points of policy and practice. He doesn't need to retrospectively justify (or, if appropriate, apologise for) the actions taken in that incident (though obviously he may well choose to). Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  To be crystal clear: I'd be fine with letting the matter drop if dab said "I acknowledge points 1 - 7, and whilst denying that I was in any way at fault in the incident in question, will make an extra effort in future to ensure that my actions are policy-compliant and that the reasons for my actions are sufficiently clear". Rd232 ^talk 13:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  I still think there are problems in the handling of this and the approach being adopted here. I'm really not sure how one can justify their actions when it's unclear precisely which of the 23409273402734 problem users it is (ok, a tad bit exaggerated), and even making a statement to that effect can lead to more drama. Clearly I wasn't the only user who thought along those lines either. Anyway, like I said, I'm not going to waste time making myself "involved" then, but it really is a pity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't understand. If RFC/U is not for this, then what is it for? And I've precisely said he doesn't need to justify his actions retrospectively, only acknowledge policy and its application prospectively. (Also, Dab's remarks have so far not suggested he thinks the user is a known "problem user", whether it's just him suspecting it or there's evidence.) Rd232 ^talk 13:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think his comments did allude to it, and upon reviewing the contributions of the anon, I feel there may have been a basis for thinking so. RfC/U is more ideal for ongoing disputes; it would be a different story if the anon started the RfC and you'd certified - though that wouldn't shield you from the feedback Hipocrite has so-succinctly given in his view. When an anon (who gives appearances of being a puppet of a problem user) games the system and then tries to get another admin in trouble, admins and established users who respond to the situation should be seeing through it rather than taking the bait. Additionally, trying to interpret an exasperated comment as a personal attack is also not going to help resolve things - when you ignore the noise, the last sentence in particular does seem similar to the feedback given in Hipocrite's view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  (ec) We're not detectives; allusions are not good enough. I see no evidence of socking or gaming - but then the one user who'd be expected to know about that declined repeatedly to explain anything in that regard. He didn't explain his actions originally, he didn't seek to bring socking as a reason subsequently, refused to acknowledge policy, and focussed on issues (whether he was "involved"; whether the edit was "patently nonsensical") rather suggest socking was not uppermost on his mind. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  "trying to interpret" as a personal attack? WP:AGF much? It felt like a personal attack to me. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, I didn't think it was a personal attack, but like I said, trying to interpret it as such (from your perspective) isn't going to help resolve.... It also appears as an isolated comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Additionally, I see no link at all between the "exasperated comment" and the "socking" view. I see rather a bit of WP:OWNership (cf other comments in that thread), more or less equivalent to "I was right on the content, end of story, unless you can prove I was wrong on the content". Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  this edit summary also suggests Dab is having trouble accepting the basic point that semi-protection policy does not permit semi-protection to be applied to make life easier for admins defending what they think is the right version of the page. Rd232 ^talk 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Unsupported assertions are "not good enough" either; it is not farfetched to expect admins (even at times, others) to investigate all the circumstances around something before commenting. He appears to have explained his actions ("I have just semiprotected. Any good-faith editor is perfectly free and welcome to edit. Semiprotection is just to put a lid on disruption from logged-out users.") on his talk page upon being asked directly. Doug's response to that, which has escalated this, spoke about general new IP-editors (Dab was careful not to make any comments that appeared to assume bad faith; making unsupported assertions would obviously be classed as that), using rollback and being involved in a content dispute (so dab had little choice but to focus on Doug's characterising him as involved in a content dispute for reverting that sort of material). Doug and you still did not let go of this, and dab responded with an exasperated comment for the excessive emphasis on rules which may have hindered/prevented him from maintaining/improving Wikipedia. The only issue is protection - did he reprotect after Doug unprotected? No. Does that suggest he will use protection in that way again? Doubt it. Hipocrite's view seems to sum this up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  "it is not farfetched to expect admins (even at times, others) to investigate all the circumstances around something before commenting. " - er, yes it is. We have WP:DR for that (all the way up to Arbcom). Prior to that, we just ask (avoiding any jumping-to-conclusions, of course). Rd232 ^talk 15:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  "Dab was careful not to make any comments that appeared to assume bad faith". ? How can you possibly say that if you've read the diffs? And arguably the trigger for the incident, the rollback, is a declaration of bad faith already. Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  That should read as "Dab was careful not to make any further comments that appeared to assume bad faith"; it was meant in relation to the socking of the anon. Anyway, what is this project coming to. The first question asked in that discussion was by Dab: "Doug, can you please figure out what happened here first?" The reason admins need to familiarise themselves with the circumstances of situations in which they are intervening is because a failure to do so can lead to exercising very poor judgement. If you asked, that would've been a different story, but you proactively chose to make the statements you did and intervene in this situation in the way you did. You both need to take responsibility for the comments you made as that escalated this dispute needlessly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean by "if you asked". My initial comment in the first ANI thread reserved judgement, waiting for an explanation. None was given. Eventually there was a discussion on Dab's user talk page. No satisfactory explanation for the incident was really attempted, and in addition Dab declined to address the general points about policy. I ask you: what else should have happened before RFC/U? PS I hardly know what to say about you citing Dab's "please figure out what happened" comment [2] - it combines a number of the concerns noted in the RFC. See eg Doug's response to it. PPS when you respond like this and make remarks like "escalat[ing] this dispute needlessly", I wonder if my rhetorical question above - "is asking an admin to clarify that he understands and respects policy that controversial?" should be answered yes. Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  It was in response to your comment at 15:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC). This dispute should've been resolved, but the filing parties (yourself included) appear to expect grovelling which has led to this - given we don't even expect blocked/block-worthy users to do so, I really don't see why Dab has to tell you or others anything else on the matter, unless he applies protection policy in a similar situation in the future or he had reprotected. That should answer "what else should have happened before RfC/U" - but more importantly, how this dispute was escalated here needlessly. And some of the comments made before the RfC/U could represent "what should not have happened before RfC/U", which may further explain the frustration he expressed in that recent edit on the article, but I digress. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  I still don't understand. No apology - grovelling or otherwise - was asked for then or now. Merely clarification that Dab understands and respects policy. That clarification still seems necessary because Dab's attitude and responses indicated that his actions (which appear to have been problematic, and he hasn't really explained/justified them, or admitted error) could be repeated in future. Admitting error != grovelling. Rd232 ^talk 08:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  You really don't get it; that's the only thing that I can agree with you on this entire debacle. He is not required to like you or say anything to you. Expressing frustration at the you and Doug is understandable, and that is not sufficient evidence to actually demonstrate that there are still issues with his understanding; you're the one failing to admit error here by refusing to let go of this reckless pursuit. That "he be aware of this and bear it in mind" as Kathryn put it doesn't require ANY explicit clarification from him at this time - it simply means he be aware of it and avoid doing that again; in fact, I'm considering encouraging him not to spend a minute on this atrocious waste of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. Admins (like everyone else, but more so) should be able to justify their actions, or else admit error, or at the very least be clear that going forward they do understand and recognise the community's rules. This cannot be controversial in general, and I fail to see how it is controversial in this specific instance. Rd232 ^talk 11:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  As I expected him, or many others in his position to respond, here's what he said. A reminder for you and Doug is no longer suitable - you ought to be admonished for being so utterly irresponsible in the way you chose to handle this. We can agree to disagree, but unlike what happened with dab, this isn't a matter of awareness - you openly admit you don't get it and show all appearances that you'd proceed in the same fashion if presented with the situation again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Really? You expected him to be needlessly melodramatic? I had higher hopes. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Please assume I respond to that with this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Doug and Rd232 should be admonished for disagreeing with Dbachmann over his use of semi-protection, and starting an RfC to get more views? I wouldn't have gone the RfC route myself, but... Am I missing a plot twist here? Nathan ^T 14:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the only occasion where your input has been unhelpful Nathan; unfortunately, there are no buts about that either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, where did that come from? My question is, did I miss something that should lead to an admonishment of any sort for Rd232 and Doug for bringing this RfC? I see you arguing above that this is part of some major failing of Wikipedia, that we drive out good contributors by criticising them for the mistakes they make - is that the major justification for your criticism of the two admins certifying this RfC? Nathan ^T 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Substituting my words with something remarkably different, and then referring to the problem as a novel "plot twist" is not helpful; it came from the truth. And yes, I'm guessing you did miss something. If it can be considered a "major failing" (as you put it) then it's the cumulation of these sorts of choices by certain users/admins that has led to it, and that led to my criticism of the poor judgement exercised in this case by the certifying admins. Poor judgement is still poor judgement, even on the off-chance it was well intentioned like you say - I considered admonishment to be more proper as no amount of hinting prodding reminding or requesting changed anything here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Hipocrite

1. The incident itself recedes into history; a one-off policy violation needn't matter, and there can be disagreements about how policies are applied (especially when multiple ones interact). Refusal to acknowledge what policy actually says, though, and agree to abide by it, is not a "tempest in a teacup".
2. What justification is there for this statement? Surely not The edit which was rolled back. The follow up to that rollback (reverting with edit summary "vandalism", templating dab, ANI thread x 2, Jimbo talk, RFPP) was hardly exemplary dispute resolution, but it wasn't "trolling" either.
3. What basis would there have been for blocking? Of course this should be done, if possible, before semi-protection. Inability to justify blocking is not a reason for use of semi-protection however.
4. What justification is there for speculating the IP was banned? Wouldn't Dab have mentioned such a suspicion before? In general, acting in difficult areas makes it easier to lose perspective on process vs outcome. That's no reason not to discuss these issues. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

PS on point 4: I have been involved in nationalist disputes, attempting to deal with parts of The Troubles dispute. Yes, it was ugly and horrible. But I did my best to use the rules and procedures appropriately, because it is particularly important in such areas to be seen to be acting to appropriately (not just doing what you think is right for the content). In any case, I stand by my position: not that Dab was definitely wrong, but that he appeared to be wrong and didn't give an adequate explanation, and in addition refused to clarify that he understood and respected the general principles applicable. Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You were once involved in the Troubles disputes - however, you no longer are. The troubles disputes are not solved - in fact, they are worse now than perhaps ever. Congratualations! You've demonstrated... nothing. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Kwami

Unforgivably inaccurate and trivialising, starting with describing a rollback of a content edit as a "revert", and omitting that the IP posted to ANI after Dab imposed semi-protection. Rd232 ^talk 12:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stop testing everyone else's patience and start taking the feedback you receive on-board, instead of refusing to take responsibility for the way you escalated this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Mathsci's comment: it's irrelevant that we now know that it was a sock, and asking the discussants at the time to check whether it was a sock when Dab never clearly raised the possibility is entirely unreasonable. Read Dab's user talk thread: does it give you the impression Dab thinks he's dealing with a sock? (Of course, if he did think that, it would still have been wrong to apply semi-protection.)

More generally, there are a number of responses that seem to think 20/20 hindsight should be factored into evaluation of the decision-making at the time. Compare this hypothetical cop series scene: "boss, you know how I machine-gunned that room a while back? I know I wouldn't give colleagues who questioned my actions or understanding of the rules of engagement a straight answer, but now forensics has identified the dead guy and it turns out he was a criminal! Now that I'm proved right, can you tell off my colleagues for not trusting me?" Rd232 ^talk 09:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by uninvolved SpacemanSpiff

If Dab had given any substantial indication that he thought he was dealing with a sock (even if he wasn't sure who), this would have been settled long ago. He made only vague references to a "logged out user", remarks about the IP creating an account, and focussed his responses on other issues. Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: The IP in question hasn't edited since the incident. How did you conclude it was a sock without checkuser? Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IP was checkusered per [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See also my comment to the anon below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, I just read the concerned threads, and unlike what you claim above, Dab was quite clear from the start that "he thought he was dealing with a sock (even if he wasn't sure who)" (which of course, several other users recognized; Spacemanspiff identified the exact sockmaster; and checkuser confirmed). Here are the links (emphasis added):

• What we have here is a logged-out editor edit-warring, wikilawyering and posting bogus warnings to my talkpage. ... Let them use their account, or come to talk and make an actual point. (Nov 4th at ANI)
• Any good-faith editor is perfectly free and welcome to edit. Semiprotection is just to put a lid on disruption from logged-out users. (Nov 6th at his talk page)
• What are the chances of an innocent newbie IP (as opposed to a logged-out user) doing this? later in the message he even uses "IP" with the quotes indicating his skepticism that this user was simply that. (Nove 6th at his talk page)

I hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thank you. I saw those comments, of course, but in the course of that discussion in various places, I did not appreciate what seems so clear when you highlight those points above. I stand by my remarks that Dab could have made this point more clearly, particularly in the user talk discussion, but if I'd understood those remarks as I do know, I wouldn't have thought an RFC was necessary. I've apologised to Dab on his talk page and (since he's on a wikibreak) by email. Rd232 ^talk 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a way to close/withdraw the RFC now ? I think keeping it open will only encourage continued sniping: some of it directed at Dab; some of it directed at Doug and you; some at the rest of the commentators; and in my opinion none would deserve more than what what has already been said. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what should happen here, procedurally, but if Doug concurs, I have no objection to anyone closing this. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See below.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Where ? Can you provide a link or diff ? Abecedare (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you saw this link before I'd posted below, I didn't realize it would take me so long to type it. It's there now at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4#Request for early close.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it was me who was overlooking something; should have been more patient. :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Outside/semi-involved view by Ncmvocalist

I'm not going to respond in detail to this diatribe, but I should clarify at least that what he describes as my "chillingly unhelpful response and attitude on the matter" refers to Dab's unwarranted (and yes, melodramatic) remark that he could resign his adminship and hand his watchlist over to Doug. A minor request to clarify Dab's behaviour in one particular was extended by indications in the discussion that he did not fully accept or understand some related policy issues, and attempts to clear that up have been unsuccessful. At no time has anything more than a clarification been requested by the parties filing the RFC. Rd232 ^talk 17:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, if your only response to the feedback is to call it a diatribe, I wonder if the RfC should be initiated on you along the same lines: you're engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and a reckless pursuit - whether it is unintentionally, or because your trying to prove a point disruptively, I really cannot tell. The failure to get the underlying issue [4] is what is most troubling. He is in no way obligated to talk about this with anyone any further, and this is not the situation that warrants escalating to RfC/U, period. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

View by John Carter

I had said in my comments that I think in cases such as this one it would be best if Dab, or any other admin, asked some other admin to take direct action on an article, particularly if, like this one, it was one which they had been involved in. There have since been comments regarding whether by saying that I would stay involved in the content in question, and other questions which some might interpret as deprecating. Like I said earlier, though, I would consider it an honor to be able to assist this particular editor in any way possible. Would I necessarily follow the discussion of the article? Not necessarily. I know my some of my own strengths and weaknesses, and linguistics is definitely one of my weaknesses. But I would, I'm sure, add the page to my watchlist of now around 3500 pages (I deleted some once it hit 5000), and I would at least try to keep up with the page, contributing what in this case is my little knowledge, and would do so gladly. Like I said, it would be an honor to be able to help this extremely valuable editor. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

socking / trolling / SPAs / etc

There's plenty of accusations of the IP being a troll or sock or other form of disruptive editor. IF the IP is a disruptive editor that (it seems) makes DABs actions a lot easier to cope with. (The lack of communication all round is worrying. Better communication earlier on would have avoided all of this). So, was there evidence of bad faith editing earlier? Did anyone mention this during the earlier incidents? 82.33.48.96 (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The sockmaster has been around for over a year (longer than me!), and comes back in different guises always, causing disruption, particularly relating to southern Indian languages. I've seen at least four disruptive socks of this user in the past three months, and all blocked after disruption.-SpacemanSpiff 15:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If, in pre-RFC discussion of the incident, Dab mentioned any concerns/suspicions about possible socking, clearly I missed it. It would have been an excellent justification for most of his actions (possibly even the semi-protection, if there was a history of IP hopping), but he didn't give it. Since he has (so far) declined to participate in this RFC, we don't know what he thought at the time but didn't say. Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, dab did repeatedly mention concerns/suspicions about possible sockings right from the start (see quotes above). Since you agree that this perfectly justifies his actions, perhaps the RFC can be closed now ? Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See my reply in the thread above. Yes, there doesn't seem any reason to keep it open now. Rd232 ^talk 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

82, I wasn't the only established contributor who indicated, even prior to CU confirmation, that they were confident that this IP was nothing more than a POV pushing sock of a banned user. And we were all users who've never edited the article, and many had never interacted with Dab to date. Frankly, I would not expect relatively new users to understand how it was clear that the anon was a disruptive sock; that's something that comes purely from a combination of common sense, intelligence, skill, knowledge, understanding and experience; it's not something that can be taught so easily by reference to a single diff. Some users lack at least one of these elements which may be ok. However, what distinguishes an admin is that they are trusted by the community, and have all the elements to appropriately impose their position/tools on others that is why the certifying party was expected to have all these elements before intervening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to stop commenting now since people aren't engaging on the talk page anyway (which is certainly one disadvantage of having discussion on the talk page rather than at the bottom, but anyway). But I will remark that making the right call for the wrong reasons is not good judgement, and making a borderline call without adequate explanation when asked is not good either, even if you're ultimately (mostly) vindicated. In sum: communication matters. Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Certain administrators are bringing this project into disrepute by their exceptionally unhelpful contributions when they intervene and escalate disputes - as such, they should reconsider whether they should retain their position as an admin on this project. Even if an admin was not able to figure the socking out at the time, it is unbecoming of an admin's position to:

1. blame anothers response for his unwillingness to proactively investigate the full facts of the dispute he proactively intervened in;
2. repeatedly engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendencies when he's given broad-community feedback (this means he's still failing to take responsibility for his unhelpful comments/actions/escalation which led to this disgraceful waste of time), and
3. fail to take any steps to voluntarily remedy the issue with his woeful approach.

I thought Rd232 was just misguided and making mistakes here - my view has obviously since changed, and the community too has clarified its view. On reviewing all of his comments, it appears there are chronic underlying problems that need to be addressed here so that he does not further disrupt this project when he encounters similar situations in the future. I hope I can be proven wrong and that we will not need to address them very soon. I call on any user who has a chance of getting through to him to convince him to do what is most appropriate/sensible/intelligent/simple in the circumstances: completely and unconditionally walk away from this, and drop the stick NOW. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, the reason many people don't respond to your comments here isn't because it's not on the main page, but because this inane badgering by you is of no value. Many editors have explained on the main page why dab's actions aren't worthy of an rfc, but your standard response is either "I didn't hear that" or it doesn't fit in with my definition. Quite clearly, most of us have given you the benefit of doubt that you clearly refuse to offer others, perhaps that might be misplaced, but I'm not going to let one bad experience change my behavior! By your standards, there should be an RfC to judge your behavior, but then, even if one were brought in, following my common sense view, I would simply endorse the "tempest in a tea cup" view. If anyone posted such accusatory messages on my talk page, the way you did on dab's, especially after a clear explained rather clearly on the ANI discussion, I'd have right out asked them to stop posting on my page. Given that you're going on a wikibreak, I suggest you do some introspection on what's important for the project, and come back with a fresh mind and resume contributing effectively. -SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I thought I was having a discussion of the issues. "Inane badgering" - thank you for that. And I do not believe we have decision criteria for closing an RFC based on some people asking for that within it, but if you want to amend the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, go ahead. My understanding is that an RFC is just that, a Request for Comments. Mission accomplished, comments received. Why this had to create so much rancour I don't know. You'd think this was an arbcom case with desysopping as the Desired Outcome, or something. Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on "Why this had to create so much rancour": Whether correctly or not, an RFC is generally regarded as a blot against an editor; and is certainly quoted by an editor's detractors as such, even if the RFC ends up absolving the editor's conduct. Given that dab edits in an area rife with religious, nationalistic and fringe POV pushers (many of them banned users well-versed in wiki-ways), you can be sure that some of them will be throwing back this RFC at him ("You have had 4 RFCs and X Arbcoms against you"). Experienced editors should be cognizant of this, and not open RFC/U's "casually" ( ← not the exact word I want; will replace if I can think of a better one). As is clear from the response to this RFC, the underlying issue was either minor, or non-existent, and the RFC was unnecessary escalation. This is the reason, I believe, that it has generated so much heat; because there is not much to shine a light on. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, three admins endorsed the RFC/U, and others agreed with at least some of the concerns. Let's not say it was "casual" or anything in that area, even if it was ultimately based to a large extent (not totally) on a misunderstanding. Anyway, it is a valid concern, which might be countered somewhat by properly archiving, with an appropriate summary, at least where the issue is considered appropriately settled. Then in future people following the RFC link will see a summary first, and have an additional click to see the archived details on a separate page; something like that might be better than the status quo for RFCs like this. Rd232 ^talk 00:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the two filers endorsed their own RfC, which is more or less to be expected. One whole entire other admin joined them. One. Elsewhere, two editors endorsed a view that admin tools should not be used on an article one is editing. No word on whether this applies when one witnesses vandalism such as page blanking; the context of vandalism hadn't been made quite clear when this RfC was brought up, had it? Why was that? No investigation before prosecution? No search for exculpatory evidence? No assumption of good faith? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I meant merely that 3 admins put their name on the RFC. The prior discussion and evidential diffs is linked in the RFC. This is not an Arbcom case or a federal case, and the word "investigation", in the way you use it here, is inappropriate. And the RFC certainly does assume good faith re the original incident (and I'm not sure that thinking the person is unwilling to admit error counts as "bad faith" - YMMV). Rd232 ^talk 07:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it does not appear that dab committed an error, why should he admit one? Semi-protecting an article against IP-sock vandalism is appropriate action. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Outside view by Regents Park

I do not believe it is appropriate to edit an outside view after it has been endorsed. Edits should be made by appending a section, or at least by crossing out and underlining, though even that bothers me as you can't tell who endorsed what. This view originally had language regarding how protection was "kinder and gentler" than blocking, which is entirely at variance with policy and needs to be preserved.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The above comments I made in relation to Rd232 applies equally to you; this appears as a horribly lame and inappropriate attempt to discredit Regents Park's understanding of policy under the pretext of sniffing about "he edited his view after it got endorsed by 1 editor". FYI, when Regents Park made a change to his view, there was only one other editor who had endorsed his view: me. [5] His edit, if anything, was mostly in response to my comment too, which suggests that he agreed with my perspective on that issue. I didn't change or confirm my endorsement because I felt it was ok as a general response for others who later see this RfC and might've considered warning a sock as more appropriate. Disruption needs to be nipped in the bud. That means, all editors supported the view that you see now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking keeps an IP from editing anything on Wikipedia (save one's own talk page). Semi-protecting an article keeps an IP from editing that article. I can see how the latter is "kinder and gentler" to that IP... though it may be a little rough on other IPs....

What I'm not real clear on is this: dab semi-protected an article to stop obvious vandalism by an IP sock (à la "Beowulf was written in Provençal"); this was a proper use of that tool; so, that understood, why is this RFC still taking place? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My view on the RfC touched on this; the filing party was "unable to let go". Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My view is quite straightforward. Whether or not the IP in question is a notorious sock, the actions of dbachmann do not warrant an RfC. After reading Ncmvocalist's endorsement, I realized that my opinion was 'clouded' by the kinder and gentler argument and so I removed it. (Obviously, if dbachmann had reason to believe that the IP was a sock, a warning is not appropriate.) Since it did not materially affect the endorsements, I think this is a non-issue. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so that the endorsements aren't in doubt, I endorsed after RegentsPark changed the text. -SpacemanSpiff 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's part two. Reverting vandalism is not a content dispute. If someone blanks a page and substitutes a swear word, and you revert him, then either block him or semiprotect the page or both, no-one in their right mind would haul you up before an RfC on the grounds that you misused your tools in a "content dispute" over that page blanking! Yet this Provençal-Beowulf Middle-Telugu is no less vandalism. So how are Doug and Rd232 getting away without the drubbing of their lives for this abuse of process? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for early close

Based on the totality of the discussion but in particular Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4#Re: Outside view by uninvolved SpacemanSpiff, as well as comments by my co-filer at User_talk:Dbachmann#Sorry, I have requested Jehochman close this RfC early. Had I known clearly that Dbachmann believed this to be a sock, I would not have drafted this RfC. Dbachmann's use of "logged-out user" apparently meant that he believed he was dealing with a sockpuppet. Dbachmann did not make this clear and never explained why he thought it was OK to semi-protect a page he was editing. Now that it is clear that this was in fact a sock, it is moot and his term "logged-out user" has become clear. I still disagree with the semi-protection, rather than blocking. I still disagree with using tools on a page that one has edited. And I still strongly believe that admins must explain their actions. But under the circumstances, these do not merit community discussion. If Jehochman doesn't close this or comment within 24 hours, would any uninvolved admin please consider doing so.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that you still disagree with some of the community input but that's fine. Can you clarify (to satisfy my curiosity) what you thought "logged-out user" meant, if not an IP sock, before this RFC ? Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, someone with an account who hadn't logged in, probably intentionally. When I want to talk about sockpuppets, I usually call them "sockpuppets", or "socks".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. "logged-out user" is not a recognised synonym for sock... but in context, it now seems clear that that is what was meant. (And it suddenly seems hard to overlook that meaning, so I'm glad I wasn't the only one that did.) Rd232 ^talk 08:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

Side comment: Sometimes, while reading or watching television, I catch myself thinking "citation needed" or "not an RS", where a few years back I would have thought "that doesn't sound credible". I think we experienced wikipedia editors get so habituated to wiki-jargon that sometimes we fail to use or register plain English. Wonder, if we are shaping wikipedia, or it is shaping us... :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Close. Doug wrote, "I still disagree with the semi-protection, rather than blocking." Sometimes IP blocks are tricky. While blocking the user's IP was technically the best thing to do, I can see why he did it that way. Agree with closing this, and have proposed it on the project page under YellowMonkey's CU note. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Close as well. Pigman☿/talk 06:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. With the use of the new {{RFCUsummary}}. I'd wanted to collapse the discussion, but {{hat}} doesn't seem to be doing that. Rd232 ^talk 08:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The horrible conclusion that didn't account for the key concerns expressed in this RfC/U has been amended accordingly. Your apology was too little too late and it is not suitable to include there without the background. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Undone - your version was inaccurate and misleading (eg Dab's wikibreak was due to RL issues, and RFC closure was not due to checkuser, but due to Abecedare's clarification on talk), and needlessly removed mention of my apology, which is of significance for future reference. The summary should ideally be written by a neutral party; I wrote it as part of the closing focussing on what would be relevant for future reference in relation to Dab (prompted by Abecedare's point above). If Dab or any neutral party (Ncmvocalist at this point clearly is not) wants to re-write it, fine. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And undone again; you are directly involved and it is grossly inappropriate for you to revert. Moreover, you should read what's there before you revert - there was no checkuser mention in the recent tweak. Your say-so or apology does not change the ultimate community consensus that existed to close this. To create another dispute with me, when I was an otherwise uninvolved user with what you raised on this RfC, is going to reflect poorly on you should this escalate again. I suggest you become more receptive to the feedback and criticisms that have been given over your approach during this entire fiasco (both direct feedback like that from me, and indirect like those who gave more passive comments). This is the absolute final time I'm warning you: drop the stick. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I undid the closing and posted a note on AN asking an uninvolved admin to close it. Much better to keep this clean, IMO. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But Jehochman's closing of this is still unclean given that his readyness to take an action that would've been in direct conflict with the community consensus expressed in the RfC - the view with 20 odd endorsements. He needs to self-revert, unless he wants me to revert for him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What essential points do you think are missing from my closing statement? Rather than reverting, why don't you suggest an improvement here and I will consider it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready to make suggestions. However, the issue is how it would appear if you closed this given the controversy over the original closes. You made comments earlier that you were ready to certify this RfC/U, despite the community explicitly coming to a consensus that this RfC/U was unnecessary, unhelpful and a needless escalation.... Moreover, the RfC/U rules and guidelines were not developed so that you could bend the certification requirements to achieve a particular end. That is why suggestions won't be enough to make this close even appear impartial. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

By "certify" what I had offered to do was move this from the proposed to active RFC/U list because it had been certified by two users. Reading the filing and determining that it is correctly filed does not make me an involved editor. I never expressed any sort of opinion on the merits. In any case, please make suggestions because they could be helpful to me or somebody else. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Then for a start, let's close this conventionally: I've left the space where an RfC/U summary goes. Am adding my suggestions here shortly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is unbelievable, an uninvolved admin should close, or at least an uninvolved editor, Jehochman is that. Ncmvocalist, you are not uninvolved and should not have edited the close, undoing it because Rd232 was a very involved editor - fine; changing it and saying you're doing so because he was involved is ludicrous, you are just as involved! Jehochman has closed, and absent action by an another uninvolved admin, it should stay thus.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Written without regard to the section below, whatever summary the community comes up with should be there; again, added by Jehochman or another uninvolved admin in accord with consensus.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And here I was sure you didn't need to be given any more feedback (and was in favour of that approach for that reason too); why are you (and Rd232) so persistently trying to make us think differently? Trying to make me involved merely for giving feedback explains your lack of understanding of certain Wikipedian concepts. I wasn't the only one who found issues with the close, and your inability to recognise those issues further suggests that my feedback was quite needed, let alone accurate. The conduct and approaches examined were that of you, Rd232, the anon you escalated this for, and Dbachmann. I suggest you bear that in mind before you make another unhelpful comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Summaries

Jehochman's close read as:

One of the filing parties has requested early close. The consensus appears to be that this was a misunderstanding amongst good faith contributors. The community does not appear to have any lingering concerns with Dbachmann's use of sysop access. Additionally, the community feels that Dbachmann's contributions are highly valuable and hopes that he will continue as time permits.

First, it was an uninvolved party who requested the early close. Second, the consensus was not that there was a misunderstanding amongst good faith contributors - the consensus was that "this RFC was a needless escalation of a long-settled, dormant and, ultimately, minor kerfuffle." In other words, whether a misunderstanding existed or not, coming here was not appropriate nor the solution. The third sentence is correct, but it really hasn't been expressed anywhere in the RfC - that really shouldn't be expressed by the closer. The last sentence is the only part of the close I can agree on completely. So now it's working on the parts before and after it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mere semantics: Jehochman is known for diplomatic language and this is appropriately de-escalatory. This matter is closed. –xeno^talk 14:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that a community consensus existed against providing any summary for an RfC/U, semantics do need to be discussed. It is not a closed matter; this is the sort of citation of ignore all rules that led to a desysop previously. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Find someone else who agrees with you or drop the stick. Hans Adler 14:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Given that a community consensus existed against providing any summary for an RfC/U": huh? –xeno^talk 14:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_9#Closures_by_Wizardman. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. You are talking about a specific case (I thought you meant in general). –xeno^talk 14:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since then, it has applied generally with the exception that where there is no dispute over a summary, it is allowed. I'm not the only user who has disputed this close as the AN discussion indicates. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You might consider writing some guidance into the WP:RFC page with respect to closures (and how disputed closures are handled). –xeno^talk 14:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll definitely do that (right away in fact); in the meantime, the current page.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Er, I agree with him but at the same time I don't think the exact language of the close makes fuck-all difference. It's clear from reading the text that the two filers needed to drop the stick far earlier on, and not get egged on into fucking with people based on what some disruptive IP editor tries to goad them into doing. That they're not being bashed by the closing is mere diplomacy - they are, in fact, suitably chastized. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than have that sort of closing, or one that bashes anyone, a better compromise would be to limit it to the point of agreement: the last sentence of the close. That's sufficient on its own, and would fit with previous practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent proposal to me. Perhaps Jehochman agrees and amends his summary accordingly. Hans Adler 14:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The other issue was using a conventional close with the blue tag (in line with previous practice); be it Jehochman or someone else, the summary would fit in the section dedicated to that. Rd232's template is more of an attempt to change RfC/U entirely which is why I switched back to what's happened normally (after reflecting). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It seems we don't think very differently about the core question. Perhaps the main difference is that I feel rather strongly that a good action such as dropping the stick shouldn't be immediately followed by punishment. Hans Adler 14:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well yes; that's why I put a conventional blue archive box over the RfC (in line with previous practice) as I thought there would be no potential for dispute given summaries have caused this headaches previously. Meanwhile, we could discuss having the summary in a particular way - yet Xeno and at the last minute, you came along and reverted as if that's that. I'm not sure how you can expect me to respond well to that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

← I still see this as semantics:

1. One of the filing parties has requested early close. (here)
2. The consensus appears to be that this was a misunderstanding amongst good faith contributors. (diplomatic way of representing views in the RFC that spoke to its utility or lack thereof)
3. The community does not appear to have any lingering concerns with Dbachmann's use of sysop access. (some half-hearted trouts were offered and a suggestion to seek an uninvolved admin, but no one other than the filing parties were censuring him)
4. Additionally, the community feels that Dbachmann's contributions are highly valuable and hopes that he will continue as time permits. (not under dispute)

So again, I think Jehochman's close is appropriately de-escalatory and we should move on to more fruitful pursuits. –xeno^talk 14:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Expressing views not expressed causes problems; it is misleading to suggest there were concerns with Dbachmann's sysop access since the previous attempt at dr (ArbCom was it?) and that only now those concerns aren't lingering in the eyes of the community. Those concerns were mooted a long time ago. Point 2 does not add any value and is immaterial to the underlying issues at hand. And finally, the first point suggests that the filing party was proposing to close this when someone explained why their concerns were not valid- that's not true. It was after a few (more than 2) calls by uninvolved users to have this closed did that proposal come on the table. A summary should have little to nothing that can be misinterpreted; the last point is the only one that truly satisfies that, and that's why I think it shuold be reduced to that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This has all happened too rapidly - Hans Adler's use of "minority of one" in his edit summary was not helpful. I agree with Ncmvocalist, Jehochman's summary was not accurate. During the RfC it was clarified (eg by YellowMonkey) that the IP was the sock of a banned user active in this group of articles. That somehow has to be stated in some form in the summary, amongst other things. Please let's be reasonable. Mathsci (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess the broader point is 'should the close reflect the consensus view expressed in the RfC' or should it reflect 'what the closing admin thinks is a de-escalatory way of closing it with the minimum of fuss'. If the latter, I have no problems with the close. If the former, then, I think, the closing statement should include point 4 above and some summary of Abecedare's and SpacemanSpiff's statements, along with the YellowMonkey finding, and nothing else. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't see any reason to change theJehochman's closing statement (and yes, I was vocal about the non-issue for an RfC). If there really is a need to make it clearer, expanding #2 to say The consensus appears to be that this was a misunderstanding amongst good faith contributors that escalated to a level that was not generally required. or something to that effect should be good enough. My inflation adjusted 2c. -SpacemanSpiff 15:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with jehochman's close either. (Though I would suggest dropping the word 'lingering' from the close. 'Absolutely no concerns' would be more appropriate.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I should learn to indent properly, I was posting in response to the posts above yours, not in response to you :)-SpacemanSpiff

I still don't see this as a huge issue; but given that more users have stepped forward I've reverted to the summaryless version. Walking away at this point would likely have about the same effect as walking away with the summary in place, so I'm going to put my walking boots on. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

May I suggest a slightly blunter: "Closed early, per several suggestions and one filer's request. Dbachmann's use of sysop tools bore up under scrutiny. Consensus approves his work. Checkuser shows that the editor he rolled back was the IP sock of a banned user." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few other proposals on which closing summary to use (in no particular order). Please indicate your preference on what you consider best represents the RfC community consensus.

2.

The community, in giving feedback to all parties, strongly feels that Dbachmann's contributions are highly valuable and hopes that he will continue as time permits; the community does not appear to have concerns with Dbachmann's sysop access, or use thereof. At the request of participants, this RfC/U has been closed early accordingly.

3.

Several members of the community considered the IP involved (91.130.188.8) as a sock of a banned user active in this group of articles; checkuser later confirmed this (a sock of Kalarimaster (talk · contribs)). The community, in giving feedback to all parties, strongly feels that Dbachmann's contributions are highly valuable and hopes that he will continue as time permits; the community does not appear to have concerns with Dbachmann's sysop access, or use thereof. No followup action whatsoever is required. At the request of participants, this RfC/U has been closed early accordingly.

4.

Several members of the community considered the IP involved (91.130.188.8) as a sock of a banned user active in this group of articles; checkuser later confirmed this (a sock of Kalarimaster (talk · contribs)). The community, in giving feedback to all parties, strongly feels that Dbachmann's contributions are highly valuable and hopes that he will continue as time permits. The consensus appears to be that this RfC/U was a needless escalation of a dormant, long-settled, minor kerfuffle. At the request of participants, this RfC/U has been closed early accordingly.

• I prefer 4. I think it represents everything best, expressing the consensus (diplomatically too). Of course, all proposals represent the way close was requested a bit more accurately. If I had to choose an alternative, I'd choose Sizzle's proposal, otherwise 2, otherwise 1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well. naming the banned user (and the IP#) needn't be done in the summary. The banned user's named in the full RfC, if people need details. Likewise, the summary should leave no room for anyone to misread it as condemning dab, so that his use of sysop tools bore up under scrutiny and consensus approves his work needs clear unambiguous statement — that's all that needs quoting if anyone brings up this RfC in future, to dismiss any notion that it's a stain on his reputation. The actual outside views and endorsements can be quoted directly at length for more vivid detail. The summary shouldn't be so florid, it should be dry, so that all can agree on it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I support yours as an alternative for that reason of succinct dryness (though the emphasis on one filer's request is a bit undue imo). The reason I mentioned the name of the socks was because the RfC/U archives only contain a summary of the dispute and the names of the subject and certifiers; the banned user has managed to achieve what he wanted without even putting his name here - this would remedy that and be an example of just how much troubles socks in the project cause. That said, if others also don't want to specify the name, I wouldn't oppose that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would seem more appropriate to record the trouble caused somewhere specifically relevant to the banned user, where it might actually contribute to understanding their socking. Rd232 ^talk 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Something more specific than that may actually add some value too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) At this point I'll accept any summary that takes this article off my watchlist :) But, if I have to choose, I'd prefer one that doesn't make mention of socks. I feel that mentioning the sock is a post-hoc rationalization of dab's actions, when, in my opinion, his actions are clean enough that they need no rationalization. But I'll butt out with this last comment! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Second that :). I'd suggest either Option 2 above or the original. -SpacemanSpiff 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also happy with 2 or the original. To be agreeable, how about we go with 2. Does anybody object? Jehochman ^Talk 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern about the wording of 2 is the part which says "the community does not appear to have concerns with Dbachmann's sysop access, or use thereof." His sysop access wasn't a matter of discussion, so why mention it? And "appears" is a bit weak in regard to the use of, as well as a statement which is too general (the discussion was only about his use of "sysop access" in one incident). I'd suggest that Jehochman's version [6] is rather better. In addition I would prefer my apology ("User:Rd232 apologised to Dbachmann for the drama involved in clearing the issue up") to be noted, as including this makes the tenor of the outcome clearer for future reference. Rd232 ^talk 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Sizzle's proposal is fine. 2 is acceptable. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC) note - by "original", I thought we meant the first one under proposals here, which is Sizzle's. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's actually the best one. I'd substitute my apology for the final sentence (I don't think that one aspect of the facts needs explaining, because it hangs there a bit contextless; and the reference to checkuser is misleading - it was Abecedare's comments on the talk page that were the turning point), but whatever. Rd232 ^talk 00:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman's call to implement 2 or Sizzler's proposal (as I still very strongly object to original the summary used earlier). Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Note, by original, I thought we were referring to the proposals that existed prior to Sizzle's proposal - I am also fine with enacting Sizzle's proposal as written.

Since the RfC never even got close to taking dab's sysop tools away, it's true that "the community does not appear to have concerns with Dbachmann's sysop access"; it's also true that "the community does not appear to have concerns with letting Dbachmann continue to stay alive upon this Earth" — should the summary state that as well? Puh-lease, could we at least stick close to the actual issues? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Sizzle's proposed summary above is fine. Mathsci (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"the RfC never even got close to taking dab's sysop tools away" yes, but I wouldn't put it like that. "The player never even came close to scoring" isn't appropriate if he wasn't even on the pitch. Rd232 ^talk 09:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone point to where the user was banned, I saw a 30 day block, last I looked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, six months.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "returning IP sock of a known sockmaster" would be better. Please see [[Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Kalarimaster]]. Kalarimaster (talk · contribs) abandoned his account when blocked for 3 months by YellowMonkey and has only been editing through sockpuppet accounts since. Mathsci (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody post the following as the summary? I believe there would be no objections. This is Sizzler's proposal 2 with the final sentence replaced by the statement that Rd232 requested to be included. If Rd232 wants to make their apology visible, we should agree to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The community, in giving feedback to all parties, strongly feels that Dbachmann's contributions are highly valuable and hopes that he will continue as time permits; the community does not appear to have concerns with Dbachmann's sysop access, or use thereof. At the request of participants, this RfC/U has been closed early accordingly. User:Rd232 apologised to Dbachmann for the drama involved in clearing the issue up.

Jehochman, when a lot of users have very clearly stated that there was no issue to begin with, it seems inappropriate to use a sentence that suggests otherwise. I don't mind including Rd232's apology, but it needs to be correctly worded so that others users aren't misled in the summary - I'd be happy with this sentence in lieu of the last: "Rd232 apologised to Dbachmann for the resulting drama." Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing that was the exact wording that Rd232 used in his on-wiki apology too, I don't think it would be controversial to include that. Hopefully that's that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Your proposed change weakens the clarity with which the point is made that the matter was entirely resolved ("cleared up"), and badly phrased ("resulting drama" sounds like it refers to drama resulting from the early close). If you think "clearing the issue up" implies some wrongdoing on Dab's part despite the rest of that sentence, well then how about "in clearing up the misunderstanding on which the launch of the RFC was founded", or something. Rd232 ^talk 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My only reservation with the phrasing is the "does not appear to have any reservations" type language. It strikes me as a bit weak. "The community expressed approval of his use of the tools, and without expressed exception wishes him to continue to actively use them" strikes me as a bit closer to the results we saw here. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I prefer that wording too John, but what the current summary has is "Use of sysop tools bore up under scrutiny." That seems better? Rd232, look at the exact words you had used in your on-wiki apology - " I'm sorry for the resulting drama". An better way to say that it was completely resolved is "Rd232 apologised to Dbachmann [ here]", and readers would be interested in reading the apology themselves. OK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Fine. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be strange if the closing of this RfC took longer than the RfC itself; why not just close it, without a summary? Anyone who wants to know the outcome can just read the discussion, it isn't really that long. Nathan ^T 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it is technically closed and delisted; the summary is just an extra. I'm inclined to agree though that this is taking way too long. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have much experience with creating summaries, or procedures for it. I think summaries are valuable, and a couple of attempts to produce them will help us figure out how to do so more efficiently. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)