Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

comment by closing admin: It appears that there is a strong consensus to close this RfC. While the opening editor has made valid points endorsed by a few other editors, it appears that the bulk of the community is reluctant to peruse the matter any further. As the support for closing this RFC outnumbers those wishing to continue the discussion by a more than 2:1 margin, with valid comments; I am closing this RFC. As the Arbcom case/motion has also reached its conclusion, hopefully we can all move on from this in a positive and productive manner. — Ched : ?  10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

This RFC covers a history of conduct of concern, by Bishonen.

The immediate issue is that it now seems likely Bishonen concealed and abetted admin sockpuppetry at her user talk page (the socking served her advantage in a dispute).

A separate long-standing issue is that a large number of editors have approached her in different ways over time, about her general conduct as an administrator, without success. Evidence shows she is repeatedly scornful and dismissive about civil questions and reminders of communal norms when others express concern over her breaches, and not infrequently hostile.

Today's talk page thread brings the two issues together; when several editors raise the former as a serious matter, she responds to polite discussion with evasion and personal attacks instead of due engagement or explanation. She implicitly endorses the posting of attack posts like this for her advantage and when in her favor. That mode of response makes informal resolution by dialog impossible. This leaves formal conduct RfC as the best alternative available. The issues together evidence a long history of concerns by many experienced users over several years.

Administrators are expected to act to a high standard of conduct. As human beings all editors have faults, but the concerns in this case go beyond acceptable conduct to knowingly allowing repeated sock-puppetry by an administrator to her benefit. When asked to account for her conduct by multiple users she claimed the inquiring post was an attack, and tried to changed the subject, before the thread was closed.

Part of admin accountability is to engage in collegial and constructive dialog and resolution (through public or private means) when a concern arises, especially if raised by multiple users (WP:ADMIN).

This is conduct that we do not endorse in administrators. The community is asked to consider the following communal issues and desired outcomes.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

Desired outcomes - communal:
 * 1) The community considers whether Bishonen potentially misled (or allowed to be misled) another user by allowing admin sock-puppetry of a friend to stand undisclosed to her own benefit, in a dispute where she was a party, on her own talk page.
 * 2) The community considers whether Jimbo should consider his pledge from a fresh start.
 * 3) The community is asked to re-affirm that high standards of conduct are integral to adminship.

Desired outcomes - Bishonen:
 * 1) Bishonen acknowledges that many users have attempted to procure appropriate conduct, and agrees to adhere to high standards of conduct in future interactions.
 * This specifically includes - no personal attacks or endorsing by silence of personal attacks, no "double standards" for friends and others, address issues not people when issues are reasonably raised, integrity.
 * 1) Bishonen agrees that she will treat her wiki-friends on an equal footing with others, or recuse or seek dispute resolution where feelings of partiality may be involved.
 * 2) Bishonen declares when she became aware that Utgard Loki was Geogre, and how she came to know it.

Further description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Bishonen is a wiki-friend of Geogre, an ex-admin of 5 years standing desysopped on July 30 for "beyond doubt" long term forbidden sock-puppetry, including using multiple accounts within the same discussions to create the appearance of consensus.

Separately during June 2009, Bishonen had rejected mediation and requested arbitration in a dispute with Jimbo Wales. In the talk page discussions prior to the request, Geogre used both his usual account and "Utgard Loki" account to stack the debate and create the impression of additional support for Bishonen. This took place on two occasions within two threads at her user talk during negotiation with Jimbo, and yet Bishonen did not disclose onsite the socking (and if reluctant to disclose she did not prevent Geogre from doing such posts), not did she inform Jimbo that those two accounts were operated by the same person, in effect "covering up" for her friend.

She later explicitly denied that she had made Jimbo aware of that, "did I make Jimbo aware of it? No, indeed,", and further implied or expressed that it was unlikely he knew. In fact he did not know. In response to Xavexgoem she went on to claim that Geogre/Utgard Loki were legitimate home and work alternate accounts; the Arbitration Committee had rejected that rationale three days earlier by a 9-1 decision when it had desysopped him. Specifically: "It is beyond doubt that Geogre used Utgard Loki in a manner which created the illusion of greater support for positions held by Geogre, in breach of the "Voting and other shows of support" and "Avoiding scrutiny" sections of the sock puppetry policy". The forbidden stacking by her friend, whether or not it had a tangible effect, was advantageous to Bishonen in suggesting a higher level of support. She permitted it and did not disclose to her dispute-opponent or the community that the discussion was being stacked by her friend. Had Geogre's case not come to light, it would still be undisclosed.

Uninvolved MedCom member Xavexgoem noted the discrepancy and queried whether Bishonen had misled Jimbo Wales by omission during the conversations which took place in her user space regarding the block of 22 May 2009. He inquired to Bishonen about the discrepancy and whether she had disclosed to Jimbo that two of the users "against" him in the discussion were the same user, but Bishonen declined to answer satisfactorily. Having just concluded reviewing the evidence of Geogre's abusive puppetry, I concurred it might be important to know if this dialog had been affected, and invited comment. Bishonen replied to me by claiming that the query constituted an "attack", or as not meriting response, although topical and polite. After this, a number of other users also asked her also or endorsed that the question was important (Cirt, Ryan Postlethwaite, Durova). She did not answer any of them satisfactorily. The full discussion is available here.

These matters are serious. Bishonen has rejected dialog on her talk page. Other respected Wikipedians have advised a neutral venue.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Concealment of admin sock-puppetry by a friend in her favor


 * Bishonen knew that Geogre was Utgard Loki. (edit summary)
 * On June 21 - 22 2009, Utgard Loki and Geogre stacked the section "an audience with the king" on Bishonen's talk page, broadly supporting Bishonen's position and opposing Jimbo, and yet Bishonen did not disclose to Jimbo her knowledge that these were the same user.
 * On June 25 - 26 2009, Utgard Loki and Geogre stacked the section "evidence" on Bishonen's talk page, again supporting Bishonen's position and opposing Jimbo. Bishonen again allowed Jimbo to remain unaware the community view was being stacked, even though she was aware of the fact.
 * In the latter case, Utgard Loki begins with "I am without standing" in his comment; Geogre follows the next day: same diffs . (This matches a previous deception where Utgard Loki had stated to a stacked target "I'm no admin" .)
 * Note that the issue here is the willingness to benefit from socking of her own disputes (in terms of perception of support), and to conceal admin socking when undertaken by a friend on her talk page and to her advantage in a significant dispute. Bishonen did not even require the sock-user to desist or disclose himself to the target. Bishonen, benefiting from the perception, decided not to disclose that forbidden socking was going on. In fact the friend socked a second time and still no comment was made. Whether it made a tangible difference is not an issue; Wikipedia relies on honest consensus. This concealment of a friends socking for her own benefit was a breach of trust, every bit as serious as if she had operated the socking herself.


 * Refusal to discuss current concerns
 * According to admin policy, administrators should respond to good faith concerns about their conduct and actions.
 * In this case Bishonen's responses were: 1/ "totally inappropriate" to ask, 2/ "nobody's going to take it seriously", 3/ it is "bait[ing]", 4/ "perhaps you'd like to do it on some appropriate RFAR page", 5/ "You'd get much more attention there".
 * Cirt was also told 6/ "I'm astonished to see you coming out of the woodwork" and that 7/ he was making a "hostile appearance".
 * The follow-up added: 8/ "[Do not] attack me", 9/ "this thread is more than a little ridiculous" . Other users' comments that focused on the non-disclosure as important to discuss, were largely ignored. Bishonen ignored (or noted only to disparage) the evident main reason or concern in the thread, instead stating that Jimbo's pledge was nothing to do with her.


 * Bishonen's current conduct standards
 * Bishonen appears to operate a crude form of tag teaming. For example, in the recent thread on her talk page, Bishonen aggressively (and spuriously) claims "attack". Giano visits the page to crudely say "fuck off" . Moments later on Giano's page, when multiple users state the post was grossly improper (Ryan Postlethwaite RxS Prodego), Bishonen appears on the page acting the reasonable admin stating that Giano has suffered enough, and should not be subject to hounding -- completely ignoring that he chose to step in and did so aggressively, not giving him the slightest incentive to change, and completely ignoring all expectations on administrator handling of disputes. She says "do be quiet"  but all criticism thereafter is against others and tacitly condoning the behavior. There is no statement that this is inappropriate and not to be repeated again - and it is in fact routinely repeated conduct.
 * When Giano posted "fuck off" in her support, she did not critique that (posted by her friend), but did critique the question about disclosure as an "attack" . A double standard between "friends" and "others", in her conduct.


 * Bishonen's historical conduct standards
 * In this exchange 2 years ago, the same problems are evident.
 * Bishonen posted a questionable post calling a user a "fuckhead" (later claimed to be in humor or to get his attention). Regardless of the post's intention, an administrator posted a civil note that he felt it inappropriate and reminding that standards apply to all users "these are not my views but the policy the community has decided on. As an admin you are expected to respect this policy, even if it is not a view you share. Civility applies to everyone, even long term editors such as yourself".
 * Bishonen dismissed the concern.
 * Nishkid64 posted a reminder about behavior and policies, "Don't give [him] attitude, Bishonen. He approached you in a civil manner and reminded you of WP:NPA. Even though you're an administrator and a long-time editor here, that doesn't exclude you from following Wikipedia policy".
 * Bishonen's reply to Nishkid was "Don't give me lip".
 * FloNight, asked for advice as an arbitrator,commented at the time: "She knows the policy. If you think she is breaking it then start a RFC on her or take her to ArbCom". The one incident alone did not merit formal action. The subsequent pattern does.


 * 3 months later (December 2007) prior to the RFAR/IRC case. Bishonen showed anger at Tony Sidaway (dragging up an old matter to do so) and Tony attempted to cool the matter. Bishonen refused to accept the resolution despite other admins telling her to: - Tony attempted to end it and Bishonen rejected this and recommenced it. This ultimately led directly to a wheel war and a pointless RFAR case on-wiki. Bishonen's refusal to accept moves to resolve disputes except on her terms was visible then, and remains striking. I have notice the same when I have tried to resolve matters, and Jimbo found the same in his recent dispute (despite making concessions, suggesting mediation etc). It was notable that Bishonen seems to show less interest in collegial resolution than should be the case, compared to winning.


 * Bishonen's historic administrator conduct standards
 * Administrators are expected to be "role models". Bishonen does not do so, and in the past when asked if she will, has rudely rejected the suggestion. Examples: Q (2007)A, Q (2008)A

It is well known that Jimbo's block of Bishonen was prompted by the following exchange:
 * Bishonen's history of incivility at her talk page to various editors

"You do not decide what is and what is not my business. Wikipedia is everyone's business, if such was the case, AN/I would not be an open noticeboard, nor would we be allowed to edit each others' userpage. That notice's purpose was alerting others that he was gone, so I don't see how you're logic arrived at the point that it wasn't needed, or it wasn't my business." Daedalus969, 20:03 21 May 2009
 * "Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!" Bishonen, 20:07 21 May 2009

This was not an isolated outburst. Observe the pattern:

''Please keep WP:CIV in mind when interacting with other editors. Being rude gets you nowhere, and won't convince anyone of your point of view. It does add blatherskite to people's vocabularies, granted, but that is hardly sufficient compensation for the ill will it creates'' fvw, 04:49 14 December 2008
 * Oh shut up. Bishonen, 05:10 14 December 2008

''No need for nasty comments. I have barely poked my nose into this place for months and when I do it is all strangely familiar. I see no need for you to rebuke me for a comment I have already apologized for... I have not been here for weeks, and when I show up there you are to criticize me. I notice I am not the only person you have told to shut up.'' Chillum, 06:45 December 14 2008
 * Oh, go away. Bishonen, 08:20 14 December 2008

''You are aware with blocking an arbitrator can cause? This, no offense to you, is the ultimate drama causer. You are aware that there is an ANI thread? As an administrator, I see this as a highly immature decision, rather than discussing it beforehand. I suggest you highly think next time before you make such a rash decision. Personally, I can tell you now, the Arbitration Committee will not like this.'' Mitchazenia, 21:46 13 January 2009
 * They won't? Ooh, I'm scared. Bishonen, 21:48 13 January 2009

In a case 6 months ago where Bishonen was "strongly admonished" for misuse of administrator tools, a number of users tried to express to Bishonen that as editors they were concerned (ie not just an Arbcom matter). These were dismissed as well:

Without commenting on FT2, I would like to say that your action was the most clear-cut case of adminship abuse I have ever seen. Apoc2400, 01:16 14 January 2009

''"Concur" - Yeah, this wasn't too swift. I'm a bit surprised and would just hope that such a thing wouldn't happen this way again. It isn't helpful to the community to create this kind of drama knowingly for the purpose of gaining a soapbox. No trout...King mackerel maybe...'' Berean Hunter, 01:41 14 January 2009
 * Without knowing anything about the matter, I think you mean. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Bishonen, 01:47 14 January 2009 [posted between these two]

''Bishonen, I call on you to resign your adminship and stand for a new RfA. If you are going to take tremendously bold and controversial actions against long-term editors without prior community deliberation, you should go before the community and see whether you still have its confidence.'' Everyking, 05:56 14 January 2009

In brief, not one user who expressed concern of this kind with Bishonen's administrator action gained a meaningful response or discussion leading to resolution or change. Only formal Arbcom action managed to procure genuine engagement and interaction, despite the policy-based expectation of good communication and the like.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}


 * 1. Civility (Policy):
 * {| style="border:#505050 solid 1px;font-size:90%" width="90%"


 * "One of Wikipedia's five pillars"
 * "One of Wikipedia's five pillars"
 * "One of Wikipedia's five pillars"


 * "Even during heated debates, editors should behave... calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia... This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia ..."


 * "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviors that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict"


 * "A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable "


 * "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive "


 * "Editors are expected to... be responsive to good-faith questions"


 * "These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: Rudeness, Insults and name-calling, Judgmental tone in edit summaries... Ridiculing comments from other editors, rather than making serious criticism of them, Ill-considered accusations of impropriety ... deliberately asserting false information ... Using derogatory language ... Use of condescending language "


 * "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior... as it is to attack any other user... attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks."
 * }


 * 2 No personal attacks (Policy):
 * {| style="border:#505050 solid 1px;font-size:90%" width="90%"


 * "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor"
 * "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor"
 * "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor"


 * "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians "


 * "Comments should not be personalized"


 * "Some types of comments are never acceptable:... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done ."


 * "Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences . A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks ... may face serious consequences..."


 * "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered 'disruption' ... A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks."
 * }


 * 3 Consensus (Policy):
 * {| style="border:#505050 solid 1px;font-size:90%" width="90%"


 * "Editors must be willing to take discussions... seriously, listening to and evaluating a variety of viewpoints and concerns"
 * "Editors must be willing to take discussions... seriously, listening to and evaluating a variety of viewpoints and concerns"
 * "Editors must be willing to take discussions... seriously, listening to and evaluating a variety of viewpoints and concerns"


 * "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus"


 * "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner."
 * }


 * 4 Assume good faith (Guideline):
 * {| style="border:#505050 solid 1px;font-size:90%" width="90%"


 * "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."
 * "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."
 * "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."


 * "Encourage others to assume good faith by... making edits that show your willingness to compromise ... adherence to policies and guidelines ... and other good-faith behavior."


 * "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith"
 * }


 * 5 Administrators and especially the section on administrator conduct (Policy):
 * {| style="border:#505050 solid 1px;font-size:90%" width="90%"


 * "the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important "
 * "the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important "
 * "the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important "


 * "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status."


 * "Administrators (and other experienced editors) should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.''[1][2][3][4] "


 * "if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil... then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own."


 * "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question... administrator actions ."


 * "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed."


 * "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: Repeated/consistent poor judgment, Breach of basic policies ( attacks, biting/ civility , edit warring, privacy, etc), Failure to communicate – this can be either to users... or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought), "bad faith" adminship... gross breach of trust..." [bold added]


 * "Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue... Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal. Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required: Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute..."


 * "In most cases even when use of the tools is reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator"
 * }

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Current (Aug 2 2009): Xavexgoem FT2 CirtDurova FT2
 * With Jimbo (June 2009):
 * Historical: Chillum Chillum Nishkid64 Fvw

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * Current:
 * With Jimbo:
 * Historical: To Chillum To Nishkid To Fvw
 * (Problem behaviors continued after all prior incidents, see evidence above. Aug 2 2009 was the latest attempt to resolve the issues, on a much more serious matter and by multiple users, and failed as well.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Xavexgoem (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 11:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}


 * Users who endorse this summary :



Outside view by user:Joopercoopers
Making a few comments on a user's talk page is not 'stacking', there was no '!vote' and nobody seriously judges consensus from comments on user talk pages. So the entire premise for this 'undisclosing socking', considering all the other comments on her talk page is moot. As to her conduct, I've always found Bishonen most pleasant, insightful, and effective.


 * Users who endorse this summary :


 * 1) Joopercoopers (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Jehochman Talk 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Jack Merridew Puppeter template.svg Sockpuppet First Class 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  Unit  Anode  15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Kusma (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Tex (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Cube lurker (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Doc   Tropics  15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Giano (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Tony   (talk)  16:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) TotientDragooned (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Jehochman
I don't think the subject of this RFC will feel that there has been good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. RFC is not to be used for personal feuds, and many experienced users are aware that FT2 and Bishonen don't get along. It would be better to seek informal mediation of the Concerns, and if an RFC is then needed, it would be better to have somebody besides FT2 certify. As it stands now, this page is likely to generate more heat than light.


 * Users who endorse this summary :


 * 1) Jehochman Talk 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Joopercoopers (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Jack Merridew Puppeter template.svg Sockpuppet First Class 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  Unit  Anode  15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Tom Harrison Talk 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Kusma (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Tex (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) --MONGO 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse in general--Cube lurker (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Doc   Tropics  15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Giano (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Not a constructive move to file this RfC. While I'm not enthusiastic about the way Geogre acted, trying to transfer the blame to Bishonen comes across as vindictiveness, and serves no constructive purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) TotientDragooned (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Chillum
A good faith attempt to discuss this matter was rejected, the question was not answered and only rudeness and choruses of variations of "go away" resulted from attempts at communication.

This seems to be a betrayal of community trust and an attempt to circumvent consensus through allowing known sock puppets to give support. Knowingly allowing your buddy to use sock puppets to support your point in a dispute of view is pretty much the same thing as engaging in sock puppetry. It gives the false impression that there is more support than their really is. We expect more from administrators.


 * Users who endorse this summary :


 * 1) Chillum  12:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Majorly  talk  13:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Cirt (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by KillerChihuahua
As established by Requests for comment/Bishonen and continued by Requests for comment/Bishonen 2, the correct response to a ridiculous Rfc on Bishonen is to thank her for her hard work as an administrator and award her cupcakes!


 * Users who endorse this summary :


 * 1) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Kusma (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Uncle uncle uncle 20:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I made one of the few desserts requiring use of a blowtorch - which may have a bit of gas left in it yet in case anyone needs one! Can't be bothered signing any of the above or below, but I'm sure folks can get the idea, this is poorly written silliness.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Joopercoopers (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) mmmmmmmm...cupcakes! Tex (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes indeedy, cupcakes. PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) One must admit, cupcakes are quite delicious...  Unit   Anode  22:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) MONGO like cupcakes.--MONGO 00:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Jack Merridew Puppeter template.svg Sockpuppet First Class 08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Cube lurker (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Support for cupcakes! Plus, I tend to support Bishonen out of abject cowardice; Bishzilla might eat me if I don't. Doc   Tropics  15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Giano (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Bishonen, a "role model" of a wikipedian and administrator? Absolutely. One of the few personalities in this project I've always looked up to as precisely that, even in moments of disagreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Absolutely: a lot of editors have learnt much from Bishonen. She's an important part of WP's fabric. Tony   (talk)  16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) TotientDragooned (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Giano
This is a ludicrous RFC designed to detract attention from the real issues currently present in all our minds. Perhaps this RFC was even launched with Jimbo's full knowledge, or perhaps it was FT2 just wanting to gain favour and be re-appointed to the Arbcom - who knows? What is known - is that Wikipedia has some real problems at the moment, and this RFC is designed to detract from them and hoodwink the general editorship into believing all is well and simply curable. All is far from well - and it needs to be fully explored - this RFC is nothing but a devious sideshow - its aims do not fool the undersigned.


 * Users who endorse this summary :


 * 1) Giano (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Joopercoopers (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Did you mean 'distract' tesoro? :-)
 * 3) Jack Merridew Puppeter template.svg Sockpuppet First Class 08:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) TotientDragooned (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to close
As this RFC is amounting to little more than sound and fury, signifying nothing, and is — in my view, anyway — quite verging on disruptive, I propose closing it straightaway.


 * Users who endorse this proposal :


 * 1) As proposer,  Unit  Anode  20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think it was disruptive, but agree that nothing will be achieved by keeping this open. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Jack Merridew Puppeter template.svg Sockpuppet First Class 03:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Doc   Tropics  04:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Dabomb87. PhilKnight (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) It's serving no purpose.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 10:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.