User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch95

So sorry
Better luck to you next time. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies are always accepted-- no luck needed or involved. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really not get this? Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Get"? We are here to write an encyclopedia verifiable to reliable sources.  You used a personal website whose reliability was not clearly established, I queried, it was changed to a reliable source.  That's what reviews are for ... problem solved.  I am still surprised at how often similar happens at DYK, but I guess I shouldn't be ... maybe that's what I should "get"?   Anyway, I'm glad it's fixed (have you doublechecked that any other articles you may have submitted to DYK haven't also used that website?)  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, you truly are missing it here, but I think it's best to drop the thing because what you think I was talking about isn't what I was talking about at all. Karma will take care of the rest. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This conversation should go into the archives of Truly Random and Bizarre Things That Are Posted To My Talk Page. I worry about you, Rlevse.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, down at the mill
This comment, and others, should ring alarm bells: suggestions for improvement are not permitted at DYK. Tony  (talk)  16:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, can you please try to be fair? You started a thread about a valid issue in a deliberately provocative way, and you managed to get PumpkinSky to bite back.  You and Sandy are correct that DYK has issues but your approach is counter-productive.  Please, can we work together on addressing issues of reviewing with more subtly than you are using at present?  Sandy, sorry to jump in on your page but I want to try to calm things down and we don't need accusations of canvassing to add to the heat at present.  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * EdChem, this seems to be a very biassed angle. First, the only way to get the entrenched and self-satisfied mentality at DYK to act systemically is to make dynamic criticisms and proposals. That is what I did, and it's what I've done in the past. Second, I did not "manage to get" anyone to "bite back": PumpkinSky has to take responsibility for her/his own comments; I was taken aback to be called a "pompous ass", but a simple apology would have been enough (none has been forthcoming, which underlines the idiocy of admins' blocking practices). It wasn't a good block, and had I been awake I'd have been among those asking for it to be rescinded. We're still dealing with intransigence at DYK, and a practice of group bullying of anyone who dares to criticise. Many editors in the community are dissatisfied with the situation. Tony   (talk)  03:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, I am a DYK contributor and consider myself a member of that project, so I am part of the entrenched self-satisfied mentality (as you put it) yet I have agreed with some of your points, recently posted criticisms of the "crime in ..." articles, objected to the hook that described the North Korean famine as people getting hungry, and you are welcome to look my reviews and comments (links available on request) and articles and critique my work - I welcome constructive feedback. I find your "dynamic criticisms" counter-productive because your valid points are obscured by your chosen mode of delivery.  As for PumpkinSky, you were provocative and he bit back.  He has to take responsibilty for his comments as you have to take responsibility for your provocation.  I'm glad you agree that the block was bad, perhaps you might approach PumpkinSky directly and offer an apology for your provocation, maybe he'll offer one for his inappropriate comment.  You might have noticed that my comments at WT:DYK do indicate that his response was not acceptable. Many editors are dissatisfied with DYK, a point I made to PumpkinSky, but DYK is not the only place where intransigence is found on-wiki and in none of those places are provocative comments helpful in producing progress, in my opinion.  I remember offering an unpopular perspective at FA and being jumped on - it is an unpleasant experience, and it leads nowhere productive.  Bullying is not acceptable, I agree, but deliberately offering bullys a target by being provocative is not a wise response.  Take care.  EdChem (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Offer an apology to PS? For what? Being bullied and insulted by him? You're kidding. No wonder no one has ever succeeded in getting reform at DYK: it's a very effective strategy. Tony   (talk)  10:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For what? Ed's already given you the answer. I agree with the essence of Edchem's comments here: although some of the points you're making need to be made, how you try to get them across is not winning you any support. i.e. "Hall of Lame" vs. "Uninteresting hooks" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for being so late to weigh in here ... I just haven't had the editing time to keep up as I used to, and what has gone on wrt Rlevse/PumpkinSky is so far over the top that I'd rather keep my head in the sand and not contemplate how far Wikipedia has degenerated. That a former arb can visit a grudge on an admin at ArbCom after showing an ongoing escalation of bizarre and disruptive behaviors for a number of months is ... a new low. Anyhow, back on topic:

Tony, reform at DYK will not be possible until a few entrenched regulars there allow it. In the meantime, alienating the other good editors there who do see the problems won't help. I am less concerned about how interesting hooks are than I am that the basic pillars of the Project are not even upheld there because of QPQ reviewing. DYK had serious copyvio issues in the past-- addressed mostly by only two editors (Nikkimaria and Bluemoonset) in spite of interference from a few ongoing regulars. Those copyvio issues seem to have somewhat abated, but there are still serious problems with 1) lack of understanding of reliable sources, which is a crit. at DYK and for all articles, 2) padding of articles with off-topic trivia so that length crit. can be met, and 3) truly poor prose. DYK trains new editors to edit poorly.  I really don't care how dull or interesting hooks are:  I care that DYK policies and practices encourage poor editing that turns out poor editors in droves.  We've seen articles that don't even meet notability pass DYK review on blog sources.  We find articles padded up with completely irrelevant content so that editors can gain DYK points at WIKICUP.  I could go on ... QPQ reviewing doesn't work, and the volume at DYK is too high for qualified reviewers to keep up. I can go to DYK any day, spend less than an hour, and found scores of deficient articles, and editors, indeed former arbs, who don't know what a reliable source is, passing other DYKs that don't use reliable sources, and training legions of new editors in bad editing practices.   There are a few editors these days active at DYK who "get it"; how about trying to work with them on DYK reform? There are enough entrenched regulars who will turn any sort of criticism against you-- this is a technique my old buddy Chavez mastered, and it works at DYK. How about instead trying to work with good editors like EdChem on reform? Or even Crisco, whose early editing alarmed me but is now doing very good work ... in the meantime, admins will climb over themselves to excuse egregious and escalating behavior from a former arb, even though the current arbs seem to get it. Mob rule is the Wikipedia way ... ignore that and focus again on how to improve content and editing practices for the legions of new editors who are being led astray by faulty QPQ reviewing at DYK. Forget about interesting hooks ... faulty sourcing and poor writing and udue weight and BLP vios and MEDRS breaches are bigger concerns for me than how interesting or not a hook is. DYK has the opportunity to train new editors correctly; instead, they are following suit of experienced editors who don't know what a reliable source is. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandy, as usual, from you, this is thoughtful, interesting and very useful: thank you. The only thing I don't agree about is the importance of the interest factor for hooks (and a related issue, the swamping of hooks with secondary links to articles that haven't been checked for policy and guideline compliance, let alone prose quality—and seemingly against the insterests of the DYK that is linked). If hooks are the mode of presentation on the main page, they need to be good as well. Two sides to the coin. Tony   (talk)  07:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony that the quality of the hook is vital. Otherwise we might as well have some bot scrape a random sentence off a random article that has grown per the criteria. Like FA and FP are supposed to be our best work, this area is supposed to fascinate and entice readers with our most interesting new material. I say this though as someone who rarely reads the main page and never reads DYK. Life is to short to waste time reading that someone I've never heard of did something I don't care about. Colin°Talk 07:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll grant to both of you that, in a perfect world, the interest factor is as important as everything else I've outlined ... but we are so far from a perfect world at DYK and there is so much that needs attention ! DYK has the opportunity to train editors early on and get articles off on the right foot ... instead, procedures and practices (there and at WIKICUP) encourage the churning out of deficient articles to gain perceived prizes.  And what happens to the "interest factor" is the same as what happens to prose and sourcing ... editors learn, indeed are encouraged by reviewers, to pad up their articles so that expansion/length is met, and there is often no regard for whether that padding is a) based on reliable sources, b) relevant to the article, or c) well written.  A similar thing happens when we demand interesting hooks ... that quickly becomes scandalously ridiculous tabloid style hooks, often with BLP issues or MEDRS issues or plainly inaccurate hooks because non-reliable sources are used.  We have admins whose own DYK hooks are inaccurate, and are passed, based on blog sources. Recently. SO ... yes, interesting hooks might be one part of training new and experienced editors and encouraging responsible and policy-compliant editing, but there's a huge iceberg under that tip at DYK that is not being addressed because the few qualified reviewers who are active there cannot keep up with the volume, and we have several entrenched DYK regulars who either don't care about copyvio and reliable sources or simply and still after many years of editing do not even understand core policies.  There is a need to address the whole picture-- not just "lame hooks"-- and the whole picture cannot be corrected unless you work with the few clueful regulars there to deal with the several who lack clue, impose their will, and routinely place deficient articles on the mainpage.   DYK will never be eliminated (it probably should be because it is responsible for so much truly bad content that will never be cleaned up), so can we at least work to improve reviewing there ?  A slowdown in volume would help, along with an elimination of QPQ so that knowledgeable reviewers can assure our mainpage is being used responsibly.  But part of that is dealing with the experienced "leaders" at DYK who don't know and won't enforce policy and good editing practice ... work with the few who do. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Heck, I live in Australia: you'd be depressed if you allowed the immature, anti-intellectual environment of this pretentious little country to erode your sense of striving for perfection. Luckily, I don't give in easily. I suppose the rationale for my recent concentration on hooks at DYK is that they're at the heart of its pipeline straight onto the main page, no doubt designed as a convenient selling point without realising ... ahem ... that hooks involve a particular skill-set per se. I find the grammar and theming of hooks an interesting challenge, and DYK's almost total disregard of the art of the hook dismays me—hooks are often treated like a humdrum afterthought. This is, if you like, representative of the whole approach to DYKs—the quick and easy adrenalin rush of main-page exposure (not quite your words, but similar). Intermittently revisiting the forum to point out deficiencies in specific aspects of DYK is a helpful strategy in the absence of engineering a complete redesign (which I'm not capable of doing). If people are continually made aware of the need to professionalise on our main page, it makes it easier to propose smaller reforms. At the top of the list must surely be QPQ and ×5, which urgently need to be binned as hair-brained ideas that are poisoning the process.  Tony   (talk)  14:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But ... but ... there is "almost total disregard" for almost ... everything that is policy ... at DYK! Keep revisiting to point out deficiencies ... but be aware that with at least two entrenched regulars who have leadership positions there and who disregard or misunderstand important Wikipedia and DYK policy, your approach has to be one that at least endears you to the rest of the folks there.  Some of them have begun to listen ... at least copyvio has been reduced.  Maybe responsible editing will become more of the norm there as other editors begin to "hear"; on my recent reviewing at DYK, I was attacked by the usual folks (of course, no admins took them on ... likely for fear they'd be hauled off to ArbCom if they did), but I received very warm and helpful and productive feedback from other new editors.  I reached them, and they learned ... and one of them even commented on the surprisingly rude feedback I got back from some of our regular admins there.  There is hope.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * QPQ is a potential disaster, and that x5 thing is ridiculous for anything but single-sentence stubs. For instance, Dennis Brown and I recently took the Sunbeam Tiger from a rather ordinary little start article to FA, basically rewriting everything, and even now it's barely four times bigger than it was at the beginning of the process. Added to which, you've got to do your fivefold expansion in only a few days. Completely ridiculous. Eric   Corbett  14:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Eric: You can use user-space drafts to expand without worrying about the time limit. Sudirman and Albertus Soegijapranata were both expanded from (somewhat okay) start-class articles in user space and later ran in DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. But even now, after FAC, the article is barely four times the size it was when we began work on it. DYK only "works" for brand new articles or very short stubs. Eric   Corbett  14:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I never doubted you knew it. Just that the date consideration is not always a deal breaker for people who want to build solid articles. Just a note, but the Sunbeam article as it stands would have been almost DYK-able (800 characters short), as you started from 4005 characters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Followup diffs:, ,  Call a respected editor a "pompous ass" for attempting to improve a very bad process, remain silent when other bad blocks go down, make bizarre posts about "karma" all over the place, repeat false allegations to long-departed editors, attack editors for impartial and correct content review at DYK (with a notable influx of other editors who continue the attack), and then go after all the arbs when you don't like what ensues after an insult; don't whine when that "karma" comes back at 'ya. Or better, learn not to call someone a "pompous ass" to begin with, and to respect impartial content review aimed at improving DYK, and a whole lot of trouble might have been avoided. Checking back in, I see that a previously uninvolved editor had to explain why using a blog source for a hook resulted in an outright error-- the DYK ran anyway. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
 * A correction noted here and followed up here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandy asked me to comment here, so I will. @Tony--you should listen to these people, it's not your message, it's your delivery that's causing the problems, that's always been your problem since I first encountered you many years ago. @Sandy, I look forward to the shining light on my talk and as for "That a former arb can visit a grudge on an admin at ArbCom after showing an ongoing escalation of bizarre and disruptive behaviors for a number of months is ... a new low."...try to consider my side and I counter with the new low, wiki persona non grata that I am aside, is not me but the low standards now allowed for admin's behavior. That's all I have to say here. Cheers everyone. Pumpkin Sky   talk  17:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no new low standard allowed for admin behavior ... the issues with admins are as old as Wikipedia itself (look at the arb case I was involved in very early in my Wikipedia career that led to the de-sysopping of an abusive admin who was part of a cabal, and the eventual end of that cabal ... one arb told me after the fact that my carefully crafted evidence was key to understanding the factions and their actions). In my case, I knew if I was ever blocked, it would be an INVOLVED block; I knew from which corners it would likely come; I suspected it would be cooked up off-Wiki as they often are; and I choose not to worry about that-- we cannot control others' actions in here, only our reactions to them. I submit that if you take greater care with WP:FLEAS, and work to establish bonds with good editors who focus on building policy-compliant content and provide quality content reviews (as opposed to the new crop of rubber-stamping reviewers everywhere, who don't know or engage criteria in any content review process but seek WIKICUP points or to gain favor with their buddies by mutually supporting each other's nominations, who churn out cookie cutter nominations only to climb the grease pole rather than building carefully crafted content with patience and precision and consequently have cheapened the value of the bronze star for all of us), the rest of what goes on fades into the fabric ... to the point that, in my case, I even forgot about the priors in one case ... bug on the windshield.  I understand you might not agree with me right now, but in my experience, both Tony and DocJames are editors who care more about content than gaining buddy favor to advance their perception of power.  When you have had a chance to reflect, I hope you will recognize that you had not followed correct DR procedures in going first to arbcom, and that nonetheless, DocJames has reacted positively to all of the criticism leveled at him-- he is not an abusive admin.   I did not follow the BWilkins block closely, other than to note the irony of Mark Arsten taking it to ANI and mentioning "borderline" abusive admins (or something to that effect) right after making certain revelations on my talk ... sometimes the stuff in here is too good to make up!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hi Sandy, I've just blocked you for this edit. Accusing others of sockpuppetry without providing evidence is a personal attack. You have been warned not to do this in the past on multiple occasions. If you wish to retract the allegation or provide evidence, I will be happy to life the block. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's just about the most ridiculous block I've ever seen, and I've been on the end of some ridiculous blocks. You ought to be ashamed of yourself Mark, and if you don't unblock then I'll be taking this to the Swamp of Despair. Eric   Corbett  16:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I am reviewing this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Eric   Corbett  16:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Brad, I trust your judgment, so if you think this block is not warranted, feel free to unblock at will. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Having now carefully reviewed the ANI discussion, I probably need to leave the block review (I'm assuming there will be an unblock request) to another administrator after all, because this entire situation may wind up in arbitration at some point. My personal view as a general matter is in that civility/NPA situations, warning or requesting evidence to support an accusation is usually the better course than blocking for the initial making of the accusation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I'd be inclined to unblock on this as well. Raising the suspicion that a one-article redlink editor is a sock doesn't require a full checkuser case. If Sandy was railing and screaming about it, I would expect her to be able to provide some pretty solid evidence or be quiet about it. To propose it as a possibility for others to consider doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't this evidence in her statement "PotW, then and now, continues to insist the infobox was in the article when it was published, but the history shows it was not and that he installed it. (Does anyone else find it curious that a redlink created that article and never edited again? PotW says he was the publisher .. is that redlink his sock?"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't evidence; that's a baseless insinuation (also including a falsehood), which I have already asked her to substantiate (she can't) or withdraw. And I'll thank you to do likewise, rather than repeat it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the input of four editors who I highly respect, I've concluded that the prevailing opinion seems to be that a warning is sufficient here. I've unblocked this account. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A warning for what? Pointing out a discrepancy and providing a hypothetical explanation for it? I've lost count of the number of times Demiurge1000 has accused me of having usurped an administrator account; have you ever blocked him for that? Eric   Corbett  17:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an interesting comparison, Eric.  --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about WP:INVOLVED. If someone is critical of PumpkinSky (which Sandy has been) would a block by a recipient of the PumpkinSky prize be of concern? Or has it been given out to a sufficient number of people that this is not signficant. What about the support each gave the other during their RfA. This dif used to justify the above block of course revolves around PS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that is a concern James; no more so than if I blocked someone who was being critical of any editor who had once given me a barnstar. I think I'm actually a recipient of such an "award" from PumpkinSky, come to think of it... Apparently not the case; my apologies. NW ( Talk ) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC) I do not doubt that this block was given in good faith and not out of a desire to silence a critic, and as such, it can stand or fall on its own merits. NW ( Talk ) 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks NW. Over a hundred people have these awards. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also James, you may wish to see User talk:NuclearWarfare; apparently you and I both assumed incorrectly on this. NW ( Talk ) 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mark's unblock log entry says, "After discussion with other admins, the consensus seems to be that a warning will suffice." I see no such consensus for a warning. His block log entry says, "Personal attacks or harassment: Accusing others of socking without providing evidence after being warned not to do so." It saddens me that an admin can add this to the previously pristine log of exceptional contributor, and now it's there forever. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. If anyone is to be warned it ought to be Mark himself. Eric   Corbett  17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe he has been now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Anthony: There is no such consensus, of course. Eric called this the most ridiculous block he'd ever seen. Brad stated that, in general, either warning or requesting evidence would be more appropriate than a block. Kww opined that there was no personal attack in Sandy's comment. And James suggested that Sandy did provide evidence for her accusation. Brad is the only one who mentioned a warning, and then in general terms and as one of several options. There is a consensus, but it's a consensus that this block was mistakenly applied. In that light, Mark's statement in the block log is unfortunate. I don't mean to pile on as the block has already been lifted, but since the black mark will remain in Sandy's block log I'll add my view that this was an inappropriate block and should have been lifted without prejudice. I'd ask Mark to be a bit more circumspect in the future about what he writes in block/unblock statements, since they are effectively indelible. As block logs are generally not amended even to correct mis-statements, a link to this discussion will have to suffice when Sandy's block log is cited in the future. MastCell Talk 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then let the record show that Sandy made a false insinuation that I was socking, with no evidence to support it. James may have suggested that Sandy provided evidence of me socking; however she did not; and can not. I am awaiting her retraction. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a long history of evading questions, but I'll ask this one anyway. How do you you explain the discrepancy that SandyG pointed out? Eric   Corbett  19:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll "evade your question" [sic] by pointing out that i) it's prefixed by a baseless and unacceptable ad hominem and ii) there is no discrepancy to explain, since Sandy's statement is false.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * An answer to the question is always welcome here; if you are unwilling or unable to answer a very simple and logical question (why do you say you are the publisher when a redlinked editor was?), then please do not continue to post on my talk-- direct answers are welcome and will be cordially addressed, continuing evasive answers to a simple question and accusations will be removed (and may be removed by anyone else reading here). I understand you are awaiting a retraction, but since there was no accusation (there was a question), I see nothing to retract.  A simple "No, I was not the redlinked account who first wrote the article", along with an explanation for why you said you were, would have sufficed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You persist in making false assertions (adding a new one this time); so your question, while simple, is not logical. You have also yet to provide evidence for your insinuation of socking, or to retract it. Please do so now. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Evasive as ever. Eric   Corbett  11:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly it's not the first time this has happened, so much of the faux shock over the block seems to be sadly misplaced. How about considering the fact that as an admin has seriously erred they should take the consequences of their actions? - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Doc James: Personally, I'm not concerned about the award. I'd be more concerned that Sandy brought up issues with one of Mark's FAs when it appeared on the main page yesterday, and Mark was the one who blocked Sandy today. As somebody who supported Mark at RFA, I'm quite disappointed to see this. If a block was really needed (not that I think one was), it should have come from somebody who was truly independent, here and in the FA battles of the past. It just doesn't look good, especially since it sounds like the block was intended to be indefinite. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Giants, you don't ever miss much, do you? I suspect that when he said "life the block", he may have meant "lift the block" :))  I was thinking he may have to "life" it, because there was no accusation-- there was a question replaying PotW's own words (that he was the original publisher when a redlinked account was the original publisher, how do we reconcile those two?) that has not yet been answered.  I think PotW could simply say, no that's not me, the first editor was the redlinked account, but asking what he means by saying he is the original publisher is not the same as an accusation.  Anyway, I'm glad you are paying attention here, particularly to the fact that less than 24 hours ago I found some pressing issues in a TFA on which Mark was the nominator (misrepresentation of sources in several eyebrow-raising statements) that could hardly be missed because they were on the main page, and which Mark's co-nominator courteously and quickly resolved, before going on to find a few more ... perhaps I'm to get the message that I'm not to raise sourcing concerns on TFAs anymore? After being out all afternoon, and heading out again, I'll catch up on all of this later ... apologies *always* work, and perhaps by the time I'm back on again, I will find an apology from Mark.   This sort of thing is not infrequent on Wikipedia. Oh, and thank goodness no one lifted the block or wheel warred or whatever (no, NYB, there would not have been an unblock request-- I've always believed it's best to let bad blocks stand); these issues are not infrequent on Wikipedia, experienced editors know they go with the business of being here, but when other admins lift blocks or wheel war, that only complicates subsequent matters for the arbs.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "intended to be indefinite"? The block log says 24 hours, which is fairly standard for a first offence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, a blocking admin usually places a template on the user's talk page saying how long the block will be. That way nobody has to go to the block log to find out. At a minimum, the length of the block is usually stated to a user in some way. That wasn't done here, and the block was never mentioned at the relevant ANI discussion. I was clearly mistaken on the length, but why wouldn't that have been made clear somewhere other than the block log? It's possible I'm missing something that was on the page before, but my concerns about the circumstances behind the block remain. Either way, I've had my fill of Wiki drama for the day and am off to do other work. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandy and Giants. First of all, not noting the block's length on this page was a mistake on my part. Typically I use the template that automatically does it but this time I manually wrote in the block notice and so forgot to do that. While I understand that you will probably never agree with my block here, I can assure you this was not done in bad faith. On Hiram Evans, my co-writer had fixed both issues by the time I woke up, so it wasn't a bother for me at all. I think it's fair to say that I have a track record of welcoming constructive criticism of my work, whether it is on the main page or not. Feel free to let me know if you have any more concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This kind of trigger-happy blocking is a menace to the social fabric. Tony   (talk)  01:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking in so quickly, and for stepping out so quickly as well ... appreciated ... we don't need complications down the road. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering we have rarely seen eye-to-eye, I am most impressed to see you weighing in here ... kudos on you for doing the right thing in spite of our past differences. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those awards started with Rlevse aka PumpkinSky as "Awesome Wikipedian", I was an early recipient, gazillions of editors have them, they are meaningless to the point that once a group of us were trying to raffle them off as useless. We couldn't give them away (no one wanted them), but we had a few good laughs.    My concerns are more along the lines of those expressed by Giants (that bad admin actions not have a chilling effect on content review-- other editors may be intimidated more easily than I am).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * : Fine post, except for the "black mark" part; I think the block will speak for itself. I'm reminded that the admin who blocked The Fat Man apologized for it years later, expressing his regret and wish that he hadn't done it ... it's there in the record for all to see now, so he has to live with it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anthony, not to worry ... that the record is there for all to see is not a bad thing. Mark Arsten had the chance to apologize for a bad block:  he didn't. That says a lot.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Followup with Arsten

 * This has been bugging me, so I'll put it here in the Continuing Ed department. "I've unblocked this account."  Arsten, reflecting on Giants' questions above, I appreciate that you did not "template" me, as that would have been insulting-- I know what a block is and knew where this one would eventually be coming from, and I long advised my talk page watchers to never lift a block here if it occurred, as wheel warring only complicates subsequent arb matters.  I didn't need a template. I understand that in "your line of work" (adminning) you frequently deal with "accounts".  I do not sock.  I am not an "account".  I am a person.  I understand how the word account creeps into admin vocabulary because you so frequently deal with multiple account situations.  Just as you were aware that a long-standing editor like me doesn't need a template, might you also become aware that referring to me as an "account" is offensive, as it depersonalizes me and lowers me to the level of the average sockpuppet who has multiple accounts?  You and I still need to discuss the issue of the prior involvement that was likely a factor leading you to see an accusation in a question and to lodge a faulty statement in your unblock, and I would be most pleased if we can put that behind us and end this chapter so that it won't be a factor if and when this entire years-long mess ever escalates to Arbcom.   If you are still reading and are ready to engage, I'm all ears.  I know that apologies are rarely extracted in situations like this; acknowledgement will go a long way. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandy, re: "account": It didn't occur to me that that wording would be seen as offensive, so I apologize for the phrasing. I didn't mean to imply that you had used multiple accounts. As far as my involvement goes: I can only recall a handful of interactions between us before the block--I didn't think we had had anything more than polite disagreements, nothing that I saw as involvement with a conflict. I saw your two comments on the talk page of my FA the other day as relatively minor issues, which I'm accustomed to dealing with on TFA day. I was accused of racism by several other users that day for bringing the KKK to the main page, which did offend me, but your comments did not bother me at all. I don't think I participated in the FA RFC controversy in 2011, (I assume that's what you meant below by "FA socking debacle"?) and I don't think I criticized you while you were running FAC. I realize I've been friends with some users you've been in conflict with, but I didn't think that makes me an involved admin with you at the time of the block. Involvement is sometimes a grey area, I suppose, and many users have differing opinions about best practices in the area. Since concerns have been raised about involvement since the block, I'll consider myself involved with you in the future. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to discuss. I'm always happy to respond to questions about my admin actions. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On the "account" terminology, thank you for understanding (which reminds me, by the way, I hope you aren't offended that I refer to you by your last name ... I've done that since the time you were confused when another editor was referring to "Mark" (Raul) and you thought he was referring to you ... I refer to you by last name to avoid that confusion).  Dialogue is a good first step, but as well explained by Bishonen in this unfortunate pile-on, sometimes "buddy actions" can be subconscious. Your response here falls short of acknowledging the mistake you recorded on the unblock in my block log that has been well explained by others.   To refresh your memory:  A grudge-bearing sock proposed you as delegate for FAC, other socks and returning users visiting grudges upon FAC joined in support of that proposal, and I strongly opposed because of the concerns I had about your reviews at FAC.  You had not once, but twice at least, reasons to know you should not have blocked me and that your block could be perceived as retaliatory.  At minimum, I think we can put this behind us with an acknowledgement of your mistake in my log describing the unblock.   I was exasperated from dealing with the notification system on Wikipedia this morning as I attempted to catch up here, and still am, so I will leave it at that for today, ask that you consider this with the seriousness it warrants, and ask you to please refresh your memory and respond, and I will revisit this discussion again tomorrow when I am less frustrated.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again, yes, it's fine to call me "Arsten" if you like. As to the question at hand, I never thought there was any real chance that Raul would appoint me as a delegate, so I didn't feel like you stopped me from getting that position. And I knew that you had very high standards for FAC reviews, and believed that I was one of many who did not meet them--and thus didn't feel singled out. So I didn't think I was in a position where it would be assumed that I was biased against you. Although, I've seen several cases recently where admins misjudged how involved they'd be perceived as in disputes, so I probably should have been more careful. Also, I was looking through your archive today and noticed this: User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch93. I hadn't read those comments before, but after seeing it, I think it is enough to disqualify me from blocking you, since you had sharply criticized me then. So you are right in that I shouldn't have blocked you because of assumed bias, although, again, I assure you I was not acting in bad faith. Alright, well, I hope we run into each other again on better terms. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, my; I just read that link. That I had completely forgotten that portion says something either about my memory or about me not holding grudges. I remembered you had taken on FAC and Raul and made several misinformed statements, but I had completely forgotten that you were also the blocker of Nikkimaria, or that you had supported Mattisse (who put you forward as a possible FAC delegate).  I was aiming for some resolution, but hadn't even realized there was a bigger and longer pattern here.  Your block was more involved than I had remembered, and challenges even my Pollyanna ability to AGF about why you made such a bad and involved block, and appears to pass the level of a "borderline" abusive block. Perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity to rethink the direction you're taking in life?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Alright, well, I hope we run into each other again on better terms. Regards, Mark Arsten" Indeed, and a tip of my hat to you and yours-- well done. It appears that we are done here, and I'll be archiving this at month-end and getting on with my busy summer (with an apology to all who wasted time on this little matter). Good luck! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up question
I'm re-reading this thread and&mdash;time out. I am wondering if this might all stem from a simple misunderstanding. Is everyone on the same page regarding what, in this context, the word "publisher" means? Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have travel and appointments all day, so if you sort something, I will check in much later today or tomorrow (meaning I will refrain from removing PotW's evasive answers for now, noting that the evasion is characteristic of discussions with him, and I will not have my talk page become another place for him to further that ... if he doesn't answer, I will remove all of his evasive accusations). I am not attaching any particular significance to that word; guidelines reference the first editor of articles, and by whatever name we call it, the first editor of that article was the redlinked account (whose name I don't recall).  The redlink wrote the article: PotW seems to say he did-- it should not be rocket science to resolve this-- PotW can explain what he means.    I appreciate your attempts to help gain some understanding here (particularly since I am never loathe to apologize when I am wrong), but I caution you to be aware that this case stretches so far beyond Classical Music, and involves so many different editors and different conflicts, that I already know of arbs who will have to recuse when all the diffs come out if there is ever a case that focuses on the entire matter.  I respect your concern to help resolve this particular piece if it is only a misunderstanding, but you are needed as an arb.  Arsten's participation will be a factor in the bigger picture; apologies still and *always* work because they indicate an editor is unlikely to continue down a particular path. I have a very busy remainder of this week, then houseguests for the weekend, and travel over the holiday ... and then an entire month of August like none other ... further input from me will be difficult.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed to have written the article; that's yet another false and misleading statement from you (feel free to post evidence to the contrary). It would have taken you far less of your limited time to retract your false insinuation - here and on ANI where you first made it - than to type the above screed. You are wrong; I look forward to your unqualified apology. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy ... likewise, it would have taken a lot less time and bother if you'd explained that what you mean by publish is that you moved the article from it's incubator as an article for creation (while adding an infobox, apprantly). It's not that evident that this happened if you just look at the edit history of the page - there is no "move" part there. The history of the article has two edits before your first edit. Those two edits were by a redlinked editor. Then your edit which wikified and added an infobox and then this edit which is actually a move from Articles for creation. However, you've used an edit summary that says "publish". So while "technically" you are correct that you were the first to "publish" the article as a mainspace article, that's really a very technical distinction. I find that what you're doing is seizing on the technicalities of the statements rather than actually trying to understand someone else's point or see their confusion. This is, honestly, a problem you have across the board. If someone doesn't understand something you're saying, things would probably go easier for you if you at least made attempts to rephrase so they could understand, rather than continue to argue the technicalities of your positions. You'll probably find you have less conflicts that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh for gosh sakes, is that it? Thank you, Ealdgyth.  So, am I correct that a full explanation indicates that PotW wasn't the first editor, and that he did add the infobox to someone else's article, regardless of where it was created?  I believe that is all I've been saying.  By referring to himself as the "publisher" (because he moved it) instead of a second editor (because someone else created it), the discussion moves away from the more correct discussion of first editor?   Thanks again for the explanation ... and now I'm off for the day ... if the evasion and accusations and failure to simply engage in constructive discussion continues, posts will be removed when I'm home tonight.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed: this is the last time you will use my talk page inappropriately, and to fail to engage in discussion aimed at resolution. I will leave the rest of your posts here because they demonstrate your communication style; if you continue making posts here that do not advance resolution and only derail the conversation, they will be removed.  You are welcome to post here in ways that further understanding and resolution.  I cannot apologize for having appropriately asked a question aimed at clarification (noting that the clarification eventually came from a third party).  I can apologize that you felt accused because of the question; recognizing your communication style (which I will not describe, but let your posts on this page speak for themselves), I will take much greater care should I need to pose a question to you in the future.  Asking for clarification in a situation like this is precisely what one should do.  The only accounting I can make for Mark Arsten seeing an accusation in what was posed as a question (in an environment where some arbs had endorsed the use of other accounts as legitimate, indeed the topic of the posts Arsten used in justifying his faulty  block, so he was surely aware) is Arsten's prior involvement with me and the FA issue.  I expressed strong reservations about his participation at FAC when he supported the position of several (now banned and indeffed) socks during the FA debacle, and a sock proposed that he be appointed delegate.  I apologize to the extent you may have felt that my question was an accusation-- it was not intended as an accusation, it was a question.  I and others were made painfully aware during the FA debacle that socking was allowed, so I must reluctantly accept that-- I asked a direct question: if the redlink was you, how was Nikkimaria to know that?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So I do diagnose this as a simple misunderstanding. Andy did not write the article, but he published it by moving it into mainspace. Sandy did not recognize this special use of the term "published" and so assumed that when Andy said he was the "publisher" of the article, that meant he wrote it&mdash;and since the history showed it as having been drafted by another (redlinked userpage) account, that led her to infer that Andy might be saying he'd written it under another account. According to the procedures on the AFC wikiproject page, the term for the script command that a reviewer uses in deciding that an article is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia is Accept and publish to mainspace. Once we understand how "published" is used in this context, the misunderstanding becomes obvious.

As a friendly reminder to everyone, this is why (1) when we think another editor has done something wrong, we probe the situation before we make allegations; (2) when an allegation is made that seems to be unsupported, we ask why the allegation is being made before we get overly upset about it and certainly before we block for it; and (3) when one is wrongly accused of something, one in the first instance explains what the true facts are rather than resort to acrimony. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, moving on: to the example of NYB's careful use of language here (in contrast to being depersonalized as an account rather than a person)."... led her to infer that Andy might be saying he'd written it under another account ..."  Your use of the words "written it under another account" are precise and correct.  After the FA debacle, where several of us were beaten down and never given a direct answer (or better stated, given three or four contradictory answers by different arbs), the only conclusion I could decipher was that moving from one account to another to impose personal stylistic preferences on articles was an acceptable use of multiple accounts, as long as only one account at a time was used.  Multiple attempts to get clarification beyond that were unsuccessful. In that sense, again, it was not an accusation, it was a question that I posed as what was expressed by some arbs as an acceptable use of a sock account, and asked how Nikkimaria was to know if the redlink was PotW.  "... when we think another editor has done something wrong, we probe the situation before we make allegations;"  Not entirely precise to this instance ... I did probe the situation by asking the question, but not because I thought "another editor ha[d] done something wrong"; several arbs endorsed this kind of use of alternate accounts, so it was not an accusation, rather a question.  In spite of the exasperating new thingie that has replaced the old orange bar and made my attempt to catch up here miserable, I believe the only thing pending to resolve now is the issue of the previous interaction between Mark Arsten and me during the FA socking debacle, particularly considering in those discussions he raised the issue of WP:INVOLVED.  It remains my hope that we can reach a satisfactory resolution so this piece of the larger mess that continues to affect the FA pages need not be revisited in any future dispute resolution.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Saved diff. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Other concerns about the word "publish"

 * Brad, any article is not first published when it is published to mainspace (and I don't understand you to say that). It is published when it appears anywhere.  I am sure you will agree that if a user defames someone in user space or talk space and a civil action is brought, that user is unlikely to prevail in a defense that no publication occurred, simply because the otherwise defamatory content was not published to mainspace.
 * Here, it is not clear what difference any of this makes. The article, as originally created, had no infobox then, nor when subsequently edited by its writer 13 days later.  Kablammo (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes a difference in understanding why SandyGeorgia and Andy Mabbett were talking past each other yesterday because Sandy didn't understand what Andy meant when he said he was the "publisher" of an article, resulting in an unfortunate situation. I agree that this has nothing to do with defamation liability and am not sure why you are bringing that issue up at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood your point. Mine is this:  Something is published on Wikiepedia when it appears anywhere on Wikipedia, we should not allow anyone to have the misimpression that publication does not occur unless it is to the mainspace.  The issue of defamation does not have anything to do with this dispute (notwithstanding some of the freighted terms used in it), but let's be absolutely clear about what "publication" actually means, as there are other contexts where a misunderstanding could lead to more serious consequences.  Kablammo (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've separated this issue to a separate sub-heading, because the concern is important to highlight, and while the hypothetical posed is unrelated to this instance, there is a relationship to legal concerns that Wikipedia editors have when adding text anywhere. It was the recent threads where legal questions about the LNC TFA were raised that led me to be concerned when I saw a few days later this eyebrow-raising blurb on the mainpage. If I had realized when I posted to WP:ERRORS that it was Mark Arsten's article with Crisco as co-nom, I might have posted directly to Crisco's talk hoping for quick action, or left it alone because of prior interaction with Arsten where I expressed strong reservations about his participation at FAC, but I posted first to ERRORS because of what I considered the severity of the misstatements in the article. The issue of Mark Arsten's prior involvement has not yet been discussed here, so let's keep this other "related but not really" issue in a separate section. I am not active at WP:AFC and was unaware they use the term publisher in this unfortunate and potentially misleading way. Why does someone not go over there and get them to change the wording "accept and publish" to "accept and move" ? Kablammo, I see your point and NYB's, this should be addressed at AFC, and while there was a "simple" misunderstanding on my part, I will explore the less-than-simple other parts in other sections as time allows. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think they used it in a misleading way. They said "publish it to mainspace", not "publish it by moving it to mainspace".  To use the actual language to support an inference or claim that the article is not published unless and until moved to mainspace is unsupported by the plain language and likely intent and purpose of the phrase.  Kablammo (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see.  And agree ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For Gerda
In the context: my name has been mentioned (on AN/I) in the context of said article, thank you for striking it, Sandy: "... and here come Ched, RexxS, Gerda and others who support infoboxes". My name had been mentioned before last year, 8 May (in this archive): "Gerda/Rlevse/Wehwalt/Alarbus et al suddenly showing up on an Alarbus/Gimmetrow matter", - that was Sean Combs, an article that I never touched at all. True facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, my ... now *that* is most troubling. I have separated this section to a new sub-heading so it is not lost in the shuffle and to give it the attention it deserves.  I sincerely apologize for that (mis)statement, and have struck it from my talk page archives with a note that it was a gross mistake for which I take responsibility.  I could offer explanations for how that misstatement came to be, but no excuse suffices to cover a mistake of that magnitude, and sincere apologies should not have excuses attached.  You have my profound apology, and I am also sorry that a false statement stood so long in my talk archives.  Should the incorrect information be replayed anywhere in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me so I can clarify again that it was my mistake.  (There are a few things I didn't follow in your post and it took me quite a while to understand what you were referencing:  I'm not sure what you mean by "in the context", as we were discussing the context for the word "publisher", and the earlier discussion you reference was not about infoboxes being forced into articles, rather another style issue (date formatting and citation style) being imposed on articles  ... nonetheless, I got the important part of your post, found the statement, and struck it.)  I am so sorry,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - I simply wanted to point out how easily I get in a summary where I am just myself, - let's keep it simple, apology accepted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the gracious acceptance. I haven't caught up yet after a day away, but I am relieved to see that Nikkimaria and you have come to an agreement, but dismayed to see some of the denizens of the "Swamp of Despair" (copyright Eric) rejecting your compromise-- I hope to find time to weigh in over there.  The reaction there reminds me that even as some arbs were endorsing the socking that ultimately led to the deterioration in the quality of featured articles and the FA process, the community at ANI took a harsher stance and ultimately banned one of the socks-- ANI can be harsher than the arbs or other forms of dispute resolution.  Considering Mark Arsten's understanding of prior involvement and his statements to that effect when he joined in the FA debacle, or even the perception to the community of prior involvement, I am hoping he and I can come to an agreement as you have.  I am always encouraged to see people working things out without escalation to higher forms of dispute resolution, which often result in less than desirable outcomes-- good on you and Nikkimaria, and it is my hope that Mark Arsten and I will be able to do similar.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Arsten apology

 * Has Mark acknowledged that his unblock comment was an error, and apologised? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, based on his last post here, it appears that his job here is done, and the question of an apology is rendered moot by subsequent revelations. I tip my hat-- it was well executed! I shouldn't have taken any time at all on this whole matter-- having a (bad) block log doesn't trouble me at all.  It's the internet, and more-- it's Wikipedia, where dumb "shit happens" all the time.  The story of interest now is how quickly KWW, who has never posted here before and was not involved that I recall in the whole FA debacle, showed up here to point out the bad block.  Ah, to be a fly on that wall !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction, faulty data because I entered KWW into the tool instead of Kww ... he has posted here once before. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Nyttend
When I was reading Requests for comment/Nyttend over again before I cited it at Arbitration, I wondered if you might have something to say about that. Your comment about that situation seems quite reasonable, but my reference to that situation was more a reflection about the positives of that situation. Nyttend may not have ever apologized or admitted that he made a mistake, but he does seem to have a spotless record since then. That's all I can ask. James definitely seems to be going the extra mile, but even if he weren't, I think that all that would be required to declare the situation resolved is every user agreeing in the future that there is no current problem with James' admin actions. That's all that I meant when I said the Nyttend RfC was successful. Best, NW ( Talk ) 02:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're saying the same thing ... that the RFC turned out positive even though I didn't feel that way at the time because he wouldn't acknowledge the issue of improper use of RevDel ... if that isn't clear from my post, do I need to clarify my wording? Yes, I agree it was successful, even though I got no apology, the behavior stopped ... and that is how DR is intended to work.  On the other hand, the calls for an RFC on DocJames at this point seem nothing more than retaliatory, since he has already agreed to a lot of demands, and has gotten a mentor, even though many of the demands are unreasonable in relation to the laundry list of ... mostly nothing.  If DocJames were acting like Nyttend then (although I'm glad to hear he has turned around), then I might understand the cries for blood-- he's not, because he's not an abusive admin or a bad editor.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I too don't think an RfC is necessary at this time, though perhaps it might be in some hypothetical future. Ched's modified RfC idea would be OK, but you're right that it would probably only strain tensions at this point. I think we are on the same page, and your statement seems perfectly fine. NW ( Talk ) 03:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool beans ... I'm aware that my writing is frequently unclear, so glad we are saying the same thing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)