Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy

General user info
General user info Username: SoWhy User groups: sysop First edit: Mar 25, 2004 20:01:18 Unique articles edited: 11,238 Average edits per page: 2.59 Total edits (including deleted): 29,110 Deleted edits: 2,706 Live edits: 26,404 Namespace totals Article	10221	38.71% Talk	1436	5.44% User	1361	5.15% User talk	5046	19.11% Wikipedia	5111	19.36% Wikipedia talk	1124	4.26% File	861	3.26% File talk	31	0.12% MediaWiki	24	0.09% MediaWiki talk	7	0.03% Template	676	2.56% Template talk	479	1.81% Help	3	0.01% Category	16	0.06% Category talk	1	0.00% Portal	6	0.02% Graph Month counts 2004/03	7	2004/04	1	2004/05	0	2004/06	0	2004/07	0	2004/08	10	2004/09	30	2004/10	0	2004/11	0	2004/12	9	2005/01	1	2005/02	0	2005/03	4	2005/04	13	2005/05	15	2005/06	14	2005/07	1	2005/08	0	2005/09	0	2005/10	0	2005/11	5	2005/12	9	2006/01	107	2006/02	87	2006/03	37	2006/04	29	2006/05	30	2006/06	20	2006/07	37	2006/08	115	2006/09	71	2006/10	52	2006/11	22	2006/12	49	2007/01	67	2007/02	91	2007/03	39	2007/04	174	2007/05	86	2007/06	46	2007/07	48	2007/08	45	2007/09	46	2007/10	86	2007/11	72	2007/12	69	2008/01	90	2008/02	50	2008/03	76	2008/04	79	2008/05	150	2008/06	269	2008/07	2511	2008/08	1507	2008/09	1473	2008/10	1573	2008/11	1396	2008/12	1014	2009/01	1110	2009/02	1168	2009/03	1344	2009/04	1673	2009/05	992	2009/06	1015	2009/07	1388	2009/08	1267	2009/09	915	2009/10	1169	2009/11	1067	2009/12	1324	2010/01	139	Logs Users blocked: 271 Accounts created: 1 Pages deleted: 7797 Pages moved: 923 Pages patrolled: 1466 Pages protected: 693 Pages restored: 98 User rights modified: 10 Users unblocked: 8 Pages unprotected: 57 Files uploaded: 239 Top edited articles Article

* 161 - List_of_NCIS_episodes * 53 - Italy_national_football_team * 50 - Grand_Theft_Auto_IV * 49 - NCIS_(TV_series) * 49 - The_Next_Doctor * 38 - List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes * 35 - List_of_NCIS_characters * 33 - Command_&_Conquer:_Red_Alert_3 * 31 - Tenth_Doctor * 30 - Amy_Macdonald_(singer)

Talk

* 39 - Grand_Theft_Auto_IV * 36 - The_Stolen_Earth * 35 - List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes * 34 - The_Next_Doctor * 29 - List_of_NCIS_episodes * 28 - The_End_of_Time * 28 - Turn_Left_(Doctor_Who) * 20 - Journey's_End_(Doctor_Who) * 16 - Indiana_Gregg * 14 - Google_Chrome

User

* 285 - SoWhy/List_of_declined_speedies * 174 - SoWhy * 93 - SoWhy/monobook.js   * 53 - SoWhy/sandbox * 46 - GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion * 38 - SoWhy/Userboxes * 25 - SoWhy/To_Do_list * 24 - SoWhy/Barnstars * 24 - SoWhy/Common_A7_mistakes * 15 - SoWhy/Userpage

User talk

* 1720 - SoWhy * 71 - Maedin * 45 - SoWhy/Talkheader * 43 - Amalthea * 29 - Ale_jrb * 25 - Juliancolton * 23 - Decltype * 22 - PeterSymonds * 16 - Ged_UK * 14 - Xeno

Wikipedia

* 1917 - Requests_for_page_protection * 282 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 179 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 132 - Administrators'_noticeboard * 107 - Changing_username * 73 - Bureaucrats'_noticeboard * 71 - Changing_username/Usurpations * 71 - Changing_username/SUL * 68 - Village_pump_(proposals) * 38 - Requests_for_adminship/SoWhy

Wikipedia talk

* 376 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion * 249 - Requests_for_adminship * 69 - Did_you_know * 53 - WikiProject_Doctor_Who * 37 - WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards * 18 - Flagged_revisions/Trial * 14 - WikiProject_Stargate * 14 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Simplify_policy_RfC * 13 - Articles_for_deletion * 9 - Newbie_treatment_at_Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

File

* 4 - Cover_of_The_Sensational_She-Hulk_No._31.png * 4 - Bill_Richardson_with_wife_at_Concord,_NH_rally.jpg * 4 - Wikipedia_User_Robbie0513.jpg * 4 - Command_and_Conquer_4_Screenshot.jpg * 4 - Minus_the_Bear_-_Menos_el_Oso.jpg * 3 - CSX_SD40-2_8376_in_Dalton,_Georgia.jpg * 3 - The_Offspring_-_Rise_and_Fall,_Rage_and_Grace.jpg * 3 - Heroes_-_S02E11_-_Powerless.jpg * 3 - TimelordsEndofTime.png * 3 - Elijah_Wood_as_Frodo_Baggins.png

File talk

* 1 - Sam_&_Max_-_Chariots_of_the_Dogs.jpg * 1 - Columbus_Center,_South_Salt_Lake_City,_Utah.jpg * 1 - Sslcolumbuscenter.jpg * 1 - Taiwan.nch.ntnu.apo-hsu.2005-10a.altonthompson.jpg * 1 - Apo_Hsu_and_the_NTNU_Symphony_Orchestra_at_the_Nat... * 1 - Forbidden_Planet_-_The_Great_Machine.jpg * 1 - FPcap025.jpg * 1 - Gadsden_Purchase_historical_mark.jpg * 1 - Solarapex_DSC01362a.JPG * 1 - Association_des_aventuriers_de_Baden-Powell.svg

MediaWiki

* 6 - Deletereason-dropdown * 3 - Sysop.js   * 1 - Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs-text * 1 - Abusefilter-log-search * 1 - Abusefilter-edit-action-flag * 1 - Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs * 1 - Deletedtext * 1 - Blockipsuccesstext * 1 - Abusefilter-loglink * 1 - Abusefilter-topnav-log

MediaWiki talk

* 3 - Deletereason-dropdown * 2 - Welcomecreation * 1 - Spam-blacklist * 1 - Bad_image_list

Template

* 199 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 * 128 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2 * 16 - Did_you_know/Queue/1 * 16 - Did_you_know/Queue/5 * 13 - Uw-csd * 11 - NCIS_television * 9 - Did_you_know/Queue/4 * 9 - Did_you_know/Queue/2 * 8 - Did_you_know * 8 - Did_you_know/Queue/6

Template talk

* 448 - Did_you_know * 9 - Db-meta * 3 - Cfd * 3 - Antisemitism * 2 - Infobox_musical_artist * 1 - Archive_box * 1 - Doctor_Who_navbox * 1 - Infobox_album * 1 - User_wikipedia/Administrator_someday * 1 - Mortal_Kombat_series

Help

* 1 - Talk_page/OBT * 1 - Upload * 1 - Diff

Category

* 3 - Wikipedians_seeking_to_be_adopted_in_Adopt-a-user * 2 - Atheist_Wikipedians * 2 - NCIS_episodes * 2 - Wikipedia_media_renaming_requests * 1 - Wikipedia_Adopt-a-User * 1 - Wikipedia_administrator_hopefuls * 1 - Wikipedians_on_Administator_review * 1 - Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ScienceGolfFanatic * 1 - Free_Jabber_clients * 1 - Candidates_for_speedy_deletion

Category talk

* 1 - Wikipedia_administrator_hopefuls

Portal

* 2 - Current_events/India/Calendar * 1 - Southern_Ontario * 1 - Massachusetts/Selected_biography/Layout * 1 - History/Things_you_can_do * 1 - Current_events/Calendar

Anonymous RfA Questions

 * Note, I found exactly 149 instances in Candidate14's that gave away the identity. I have rectified that, but haven't had time to go through the other RFX's. Useight (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please, I've seen these used in so many RfBs that I can recognize them just by seeing the percentage (particularly Candidate14), and I'm sure I'm not alone. Glass  Cobra  16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's mildly pointless, although I've just fixed a couple of the RfBs. However, this discussion probably should go somewhere else; WT:RFA perhaps. Chick Bowen 17:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, yeah. You, me, and everyone else who has had RFA watchlisted for awhile know these RFXs like the back of our hands. It wasn't an attempt to keep it a secret from you. Just pick a past RFB and you can see them all without taking thirty seconds of effort. Some of the candidates have expressed dismay at being used as RFB questions incessantly. Just trying to be courteous. Useight (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfX's will be familiar to those who are familiar with them, but for many they have not memorized the RfX's and might not remember the exact details surrounding them. As for 14, I wouldn't mind getting rid of it for obvious reasons, but the survey wasn't created by me ;-)  But the hope is at in time, the identities of the individuals will be less remembered by people.  This was done to protect the feelings of people who felt that everytime a person ran for 'crat taht their failures were being highlighted for all to see.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have always been disturbed by these questions not only because they rehash old grievances but because they don't seem fair to candidates, essentially forcing them to take a position on some of our most toxic and unresolvable debates. The nameless solution, if it works long-term, is a reasonable compromise, though not ideal.  14 is the only one where the anonymizing has actually obscured the condition in which it was presented to the bureaucrats, and thus I would agree that one should be removed, and would hope that candidates would decline to give an answer for that one. Chick Bowen 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, I hate them because they are the one's that have been deemed controversial/notable to some extent. I only asked the question to get the generic form out there before somebody posted a bunch of RfX's with user names. Not only do they force the candidates/noms to relive the agony, but they also can raise some hackles from 'crats. I know of at least one case wherein a candidates response differed from the closing crat and it created some tension between the two because the 'crat took the candidates statement as an inditement of his/her judgment. I suspect that there are other cases where 'crat felt his/her judgement was challenged/undermined by a candidate whose interpretation differed from the closing crat's. There are also problems with hindsight---some of those RfA's are listed because of what happened to the candidate AFTER the RfA. I believe Flying Toaster is one. IMO, based upon what was presented DURING the RfA, FT's RfA was a clear pass. Almost immediately after the promotion, evidence surfaced that made the pass a bad decision.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I scanned through that one and found a large number of references to the user's, erm, nickname, still scattered through it. Think chemistry and you'll see what I mean. Maybe. --Dweller (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, jumps out pretty fast. Nathan  T 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Took out 68 more references. I don't know a thing about chemistry (I somehow made it through high school and a Bachelor's degree without taking a single chemistry class), so I simply did a search of some of the other names I've seen that candidate use. It's a long RFA, so there could be more...Useight (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found quite a few more instances of one particular nickname. But then again I was feeling very thirsty at the time, and it may have influenced my vision, whicH is not normally 20/20... GJC 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But then again, everyone who is here for 2 years knows about that special RFA since it's listed everywhere, so there is no point in anonymous-izing much. Regards  So Why  21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are all readily identifiable using a very simple technique. Leaky  Caldron  22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, but that was for the benefit of Useight, who evidently had similar experiences in Chemistry classes to mine own, and who, in his anononononymizing of that particular RfDisaster, missed a few instances of search term "H20". Thus my total lack of subtlety morphs into blatant WTFfery. :) GJC 03:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be more comfortable making up completely new hypothetical RfAs, if anybody has the time/inclination. I might try a few... – Juliancolton  &#124; [[User_talk:Juliancolton| Talk ]] 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that if we are to use examples we should either get those RFx's candidates consent for them to be used this way, or anonymise them; Even if it does take a while for some regulars to forget what they were based on. But generous as Julian's offer is, I think it would be difficult to create such hypothetical borderline RFxs and have everyone agree what result they "should" be - at least with genuine ones we have both the actual result and in some cases experience as to how the individual has edited since. But on a wider point, isn't there a risk that these examples will detract from people using their judgement of the candidates actual behaviour, in favour of something that strikes me as just a little bit gameable? I'm sorry if that sounds a tad negative, but I wouldn't make this criticism of an exam where I was confident that the candidates couldn't see the questions in advance.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How they've edited since promotion is irrelevant. I don't care if you are dealing with Pastor Theo/Anarchist/Flying Toaster, you can't expect 'crats to know the future.  Those cases have to be closed based upon the information at hand at the time of the RfA.  As for people knowing the questions in advance, we already have that.  I think both JC and Joe included the answers to these questions before posting their RfB.  They've almost become standard questions at RfB---and anybody could research them via past RfB's.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Majorly/RFA looks like a good place to start. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 23:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting pretty off-track from the discussion of the candidate, perhaps it should be transplanted to WT:RFA? @JC User:Cool3/RfA Hypothetical 1 is one users' stab at a hypothetical RFA. It was presented to me during my candidacy. –xenotalk 00:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

NEWT
Could one of the opposes express what problem they find with the NEWT thing? As I understand it, people made a separate account (with proper notification to the powers that be) and created valid (if not perfect) articles with the intent of seeing how new users get treated. Was there something going on there that really offended people? I don't see any violation of WP:POINT, but I might be missing something (or getting confused with some other project I guess). Help? Hobit (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, if this discussion exists elsewhere, a pointer to it would be just fine. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a new page patroller at the time. The issue as I saw it was that NEWT became a problem for the already harassed patrollers- near the end of it, people were creating intentionally bad articles almost as bait. A bunch of patrollers quit because of this, and the NPP backlog was enormous at the time. We needed everyone we could get. ALI nom nom 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just to clarify: I'm not an oppose. ALI nom nom 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would be a problem. I hadn't realized that had happened (I considered getting involved at the start, but didn't feel it was worth the time). The cases I saw people were writing good, if not well-formatted articles on notable topics.  What you describe is certainly problematic. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, these were the "valid (if not perfect) articles" submitted by SoWhy, in their entirety:
 * Richard Rogler is very funny German comedian who was on TV and received many awards.
 * Andreas Rebers is successful comedian from Munich. He got many awards. He plays accordion often.
 * Wolfgang Stumph is a German actor. He was in many films and won awards for being a good actor.
 * Russ Meneve is a comedian from Hawthorne, NJ. He was on TV at Jay Leno.
 * We're not talking the Evil Deletionist Cabal deleting perfectly good articles out of spite here. As I say in the RFB itself, if a genuine newcomer were to constantly create "articles" like this, they'd at the very least get strong words of advice, and would stand a very good chance of being blocked for trolling if they continued to do so. – iride  scent  23:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He did include sources within 24 hours (at least in the one I looked at). But yeah, I see why those would annoy people. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually if you look at the edits that created those articles, as well as the text quoted by Iridescent all of SoWhy's articles had a source when they were first created - even the one that was tagged A7 in the moment of its creation.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to answer Hobit's original question: the problem with NEWT was that it created an artificial situation intended to test the system, and thus there was an inevitable temptation to create borderline articles. Had somebody submitted a well-sourced biography of someone obviously important, the system would not have been tested.  Thus, even though it was not the original intent, it became a breaching experiment, and with hindsight (as SoWhy himself has acknowledged) that outcome seems able to be anticipated from the circumstances of its creation.  So I think it was a very bad idea and I hope no one tries it again.  However, as I said in my neutral vote, SoWhy's part in it was minor and mild, and I'm not sure I see it as such a big deal. Chick Bowen 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the purpose behind NEWT in that I thought people were going to be creating alternate accounts (i.e. "new user" accounts), create articles in the same way most seasoned editors know how to create articles, and then report their experiences. I did not think that it was supposed to be about creating "new user" accounts, act and edit like (completely clueless) newcomers, and then report their experiences. In many cases, I've seen the latter, which hasn't accomplished anything else except face-slapping other admins and newpage patrollers (or "drive-by taggers" or whatever pejorative term you wish to call them). If it was done in the way I understood it, then I think we would have gotten some useful feedback, but that didn't happen. (Otherwise, we wouldn't be having all this drama and conversation about it.) –MuZemike 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, your post above explains your oppose rather well - thank you for that. I am no longer confused, and I see your rationale. Tan   &#124;   39  19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But how does creating a new account and then adding a fully referenced and normal article test NPP? All that would happen would be (a) the article would be patrolled and (b) the "new" editor would be investigated for socking.
 * The question was whether NPP was tagging and/or deleting articles that should not be deleted. No hard information could be obtained without testing in the way NEWT did it, but obviously some of the articles&mdash;including my own&mdash;were too close to borderline CSDs. Wolfgang Stumph, tagged here, included two sources and included a claim of importance ("He was in many films and won awards for being a good actor."), and so should not have been CSD'd. That's what NEWT was looking for, to see if articles like that were being deleted and newbies driven away as a result. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I should ask why do the experiment, if this has always been so apparent (at least from the New Users' RFC)? But I mean, when someone creates a decent new article and is a new user, doesn't that always spark suspicion in the rest of us? –MuZemike 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, just to clarify, are we talking about the same kind of new article? By "in the same way most seasoned editors know how to create articles", I thought you were referring to a new article somewhat akin to this (properly formatted, perfect refs, etc.) Or were you thinking of a worse article? Sorry for my confusion. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think most create said articles like that right from the get-go, but on the other hand, nothing that's utter crap either (i.e. no formatting, no nothing); I would have expected at least articles written with some clue, that is, some formatting and a source or two included (either inline or not). I mean, if we know we're apparently not supposed to touch badly written pages by new users, then why hold others' feet to the fire when they do? That seems very counterproductive in my view and mainly my huge criticism of the experiment. It could have been pulled off as successful, but thanks to a handful, it wasn't. –MuZemike 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think they do either, hence my confusion. :) Your second part is why I am rather ashamed at having created this. Although I was attempting to imitate a person who did not learn English as their first language, a new article in list format on a ship isn't too common. On to your next point: you're supposed to touch and modify them as necessary, but not CSD them if they have (a) decent source(s). This in itself became a problem when we found that articles were, in fact, being incorrectly tagged and deleted, but some taggers and/or deleters refused to recognize that it was wrong. This problem, however, paled in comparison to the borderline articles that were created and CSD'd, and the creator of the article (for example, me) defended the article despite it being so borderline. Obviously they knew it was notable, but the conflict came because they created articles that were so close to the CSD criteria that some not surprisingly, were tagged for CSD.
 * I don't know how else this experiment could have been conducted, as following a new user's article and writing up a report on what went wrong might have been seen as ... not quite wikihounding, but something like that. As such, I defend this project's idea, but not so much its implementation by some, including me. I don't see anything wrong with SoWhy's articles, though. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, take a look at the CSD surveys that I did about a year ago. I obtained information about the practices of CSD'ers without implicating other admins.  In fact, I went out of my way to try to avoid including the person who tagged the article or the acting admin's names.  Could people find that information?  Yes, but they would generally have to dig for it.  A better approach would have been to review actual articles written by new users to see how they were handled.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you know you don't spend enough time around RfA when you didn't realize that Balloonman had retired. ;) Those are interesting, but I'm not convinced that it was necessarily better. I think that the results of mystery shopping and your surveys aren't better than each other, nor worse, except that NEWT's mystery shopping should have not mentioned names from the start. (general statement coming, not directed at you) I'm quite sickened by everyone's assumption that NEWT was a bad idea from its creation, as I think that with a few changes it could have been extremely beneficial, but those weren't realized until it was too late. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody even Balloonman really realizes that he's retired... I think I've had 100+ edits every month but one since my "retirement"... the other difference with NEWT and my surveys is that NEWT deliberately created marginal or bad articles with the intent catching others. The CSD surveys were using real results---and then opened the issue for discussion.  I don't know if NEWT was a bad idea from inception, it undoubtably had good intentions, but once it started creating socks with the intent of "testing" others by way of intentionally creating inferior articles, that is when it went astray.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To me it was watching it develop from the start and I can't recall how I ran into it. In its initial days names of editors deemed to have failed the NEWT test were publicly exposed and a commentary given on how well people did or didn't do. Even if people took it constructively it still have a mightier-than-thou feel of review. Once we knew it was deliberately set up to test "hard ones" and admins were saving their own articles on their normal accounts, WP:EXPLODE. To me it was a massive ethics and morality violation to deliberate deceive the community like that and just completely lie or fake a persona to the users if engaging in talk. The result was people calling for blood of those doing testing and some open statements of avoiding NPP from then on. At that point, since it'd proven a detriment to the community with no tangible benefit, I was pretty set on end opinion.
 * Testing continued. User talk pages still made "victims" easy to spot with every admin watchlisted. All of this is before the puppetry bit, which I've no need to get into. Like all good arguments debates, nothing came of it despite a whole lot of perfectly good suggestion for basic fixes, like a less angry template color. ... I wish the NEWT page would just be MfD'd or at least archived and locked away in some vault. End result? We thought about A7 I guess, but in the end opinions weren't changed. Counter-patrols I think are more common, but that's kind of a sad thing to have to do as well. It's a good activity, but it feels like trying to save embarrassment for others. It's not that I don't trust taggers, it's that I want to see what I be worked on. Assume you get 1 counter-patrol and admin check for delete... 3 failsafes to go over before a deletion? Never understood why this only focused on first angle of it.
 * I've wondered this since the day I first saw the project, and I still don't understand why following random new articles wouldn't have worked just as well. I know I sound like a total bastard as this point, but I'm entirely calm about this and I don't have any specific ill will. It cannot justify support considering effort and discussion and research so many editors put into that as a survival technique even if not "tagged". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Why has this RfB become a battleground for WP:NEWT related dispute? SoWhy's participation was not crucial to that project's development, and calls for his desysop are frankly silly. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple; WP:NEWT, in the eyes of some, was a deliberate subversion of the community's normal processes that involved lying and the violation of trust. Obviously, this impacts on whether or not SoWhy has the trust of the community to gain additional rights, considering that (in the eyes of some) he's abused the trust the community gives to a normal user. The validity of NEWT is therefore crucial; if it was a saintly project, SoWhy is fine. If it was a hellspawned creation that should have been dowsed on holy water the moment it was conceived (obviously, exaggerating a bit on both sides) then the original point (deliberate subversion) comes into play. Ironholds (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the notion that NPP, as volunteers, must be completely immune to any form of quality control is equally disturbing. That being said, that SoWhy's RfB has become the trial of WT:NEWT for some is also a breach of community norms, WP:POINT, WP:BATTLE and WP:ABF being the tip of the iceberg. MLauba (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quality control comes through the actions of the reviewing admins. Arguing that deception is a form of quality control is like suggesting we should make up disputes to test how good the Mediation Committee is at resolving problems. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a form of mystery shopping, something commonly used in real life. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there are several distinct differences. The goal of mystery shopping is not to create an artificial situation with the intent of identifying problematic individuals.  Nor are the instructions to the Mystery Shoppers to be problematic.   That is exactly what NEWT was designed to do.  The articles were intended to be ones that were intentionally borderline with intent of identifying people who didn't fit CSD'ers criteria.  Furthermore, there is not a single store that uses mystery shoppers where the employees don't realize that serving a mystery shopper is a real possibility.  E.g. it is done in the open and having a mystery shopper review you is not unexpected.  Employing mystery shoppers is the action of people who have the authority and responsibility to do so---senior management.  If the Wikimedia Foundation chose to do something like this, it would be a different discussion---they have the authority to do so.  Here is a self appointed police force.  Finally, when employing mystery shoppers, independent individuals are employed to make the evaluation---not the people who are attempting to prove a point.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'd also point out that, to use the shopping analogy, on Wikipedia every CSD "transaction" is overseen by an administrator. Unless every transaction in a shop is watched by an eagle-eyed store manager I can't see how the analogy really works. Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He lied and played games, very recently. Some of us think that's germane to the question of whether an editor should be given a position of greater trust.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And repeating it ad nauseam is disruptive. And judging by the increasing fury you all mutually drive yourself up to and the increasing loss of restraint, also venturing quite happily into WP:NPA territory. But hey, it's all fair game, norms of collegial discussion don't apply to Rfx, right? MLauba (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Protesting against other people's concerns ad nauseam is, by your standard, disruptive as well. That word disruptive does not mean people i disagree with who won't shut up.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:NEWT is thataway. MLauba (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but the RFB for SoWhy is right here. We are discussing his suitability for a position of added responsibility and trust.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BS. It has devolved into a trial of NEWT long ago. MLauba (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite. Julian asks why this has become a battleground for NEWT, and you lot start arguing about it again. I think Julian means why is this now completely off subject? We are no longer debating whether SoWhy is an appropriate candidate, rather just arguing about NEWT, and aspects of NEWT which SoWhy had nothing to do with, and which are therefore irrelevant to this RfB. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Percisely. This sort of discussion is miles beyond the scope of RfB. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from oppose

 * 1) Oppose due to some cases of questionable judgement. If we need more bureaucrats, there are better qualified users around.Epbr123 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please elaborate (with diffs if possible)? If you have concerns about my judgment, I'd like to know why exactly, so I can reflect on them. Regards  So Why  11:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to try. So far, your regrets about newt are that it upset people. You actually don't see why sock puppetry. deception and entrapment are corrosive of trust and abusive of good faith editors that wade through mountains of crap every day trying to weed out the worst. You used a sock to create a BLP on the non-notable Russ Meneve that said, in its entirety: "Russ Meneve is a comedian from Hawthorne, NJ. He was on TV at Jay Leno." That article has since been improved to say, in its entirety, "Russ Meneve is a comedian from Hawthorne, New Jersey. He has appeared on Jay Leno's television talk show. Meneve once worked as a page for NBC." Wow. Now we're really sailing over the notability bar. This is not just about Newt. It's about your glaringly poor judgement. Any mature adult suitable for the position you're seeking now would well have anticipated that lying and deceit to create marginally notable BLPS, deliberatley misformated and poorly written, to play "gotcha" with the new page patrollers, would be controversial. You basically shat all over people who are doing their best over there and have already expressed some dedication to the website to "protect" new little, incompetent wiki-lambs. That you didn't expect a backlash is prima facie evidence that you aren't particularly thoughtful and you have poor judgement. It also says something troubling about your ethics, at least to me. So now you're saying "my bad." Well, that's only evidence you've learned not to do precisely this again. But the overall shadow it casts on your competence will take a year, at least, of demonstrated good judgement in a variety of areas to be dispelled. Finally, undergirding all of this appears to a be a philosophy that preserving marginally notable, poorly sourced alleged information is more important than working to avoid and fix these problems. You should have been deadmined for this. Hopefully, at least, it will prevent you from getting your new lolly.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A comment that applies to all of the NEWT collaborators, and in particular the originator of the shambles. I fully see your point, I just wonder if SW may have learned his lesson well and can turn it into practical benefit for him and the community? Leaky Caldron  17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was convinced he hasn't really learned by this comment he made, upthread: "Unfortunately, I did not know of those things when I participated and those concerns were not voiced until a week after my participation ended (see WT:NEWT#Bad_idea). It's not an excuse for not foreseeing those concerns (but who can foresee every possible concern?)" That this was a bad idea was not just foreseable, it was a dead certainty. Frequently in wikipedia people apologize for creating controversy without appearing to understand the underlying, ground truth problem. I think this is one of those cases.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sick and tired of defending NEWT from editors who don't understand how and why it was begun, so I'll quote myself above:
 * I'm a little tired of everyone talking about such a bad idea it was. I'm not so sure it was the idea that was wrong; I think WSC had a great starting plan. However, it was implemented poorly by some, including me—some of the articles were borderline CSDs. Also, some editors took it quite badly when they were caught on a clearly wrong CSD. Instead of taking it in stride and improving their decisions, they turned their wrath on the project and everyone involved in it. No, I'm not saying that everyone was opposed to this project because they were caught, but I think that caused a lot of the negativity surrounding it all.
 * The starting plan wasn't the bad idea, and people like SoWhy implemented it how it was supposed to be. It was editors like me and others who began the trend that led to all the negativity and, eventually, this. It was certainly not a forgone conclusion that this was going to be bad, so don't jump on the bandwagon to oppose NEWT before you actually understand it. Thanks. — Ed   (talk •  majestic titan)  18:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully understand. It was fundamentally destructive, unethical and deceitful from the word go. SoWhy is responsible for his decision to lie and abuse other editors. You are likewise responsible for your actions and decisions.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Um, no, editors took it badly when they were caught on borderline wrong CSD cases and then lectured like they screwed up an obvious decision when they didn't even know they were going to be tested. Mr.Z-man 19:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really. I'd like to here your reasons why it was " funamentally [sic] destructive, unethical and deceitful from the word go", as I truly believe it wasn't. With a few changes, it could have been extremely beneficial. If it was so unethical, why was WP:SOCK written with the example "longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." Did they use that example because they didn't think anyone would do that? I doubt it. Deceitful? Because we pretended to be new users as allowed by policy? Because the original idea was to see how many notable newbie articles were being speedied? Your statement truly baffles me and seems to assume that all participants in NEWT were motivated by trying to make look the NPP'ers look foolish.
 * "Took it quite badly" was the wrong descriptor, as when I wrote it, I was thinking of the comment "The reason I deleted the article was that the wikilinks did not have the proper markup. In addition, "See also" should be used instead of "See articles" and "External links" should be substituted for "Sites"." Z-man, your thought is why I said it was implemented poorly. I'm not defending that, I'm defending the original idea, which was sound IMHO. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lying liars lie. You all lied. I don't trust liars. That's about it in a nutshell.Bali ultimate(talk) 19:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, quoting "longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users" is either deliberately wrong or through a misunderstanding. That line was not implemented until after the experiment; seethis diff of the pre-experiment policy. Ironholds (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How interesting. The policy was changed on october 6 by the same editor who began the unethical and deceitful experiment on October 5 . That fig leaf doesn't cover much.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I addressed this below four minutes before your post. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bali for the assuming we did and are acting in bad faith and with the worst intentions in mind. I, for one, well and truly appreciate it as a person, not an anonymous Wikipedia editor.
 * No, see Wikipedia talk:NEWT: "It was removed this July by Kingturtle, having been on the page most or all of the time between than and 2004(!), as far as I can tell. WereSpielChequers then restored it on the 6th of this october." — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no opinions about your bad or good faith. It is your actions I have a problem with, specifically SoWhy's, since his actions speak volumes about the quality of his overall judgement, the matter at hand in this RFB.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling the participants of NEWT "liars" immediately assumes the bad faith of everyone associated with NEWT. — Ed   (talk •  majestic titan)  19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Every established editor who created a sock and masqueraded as a new user lied. That's an established fact, and has nothing to do with assumptions or bad faith.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you insist on calling it, the action was and is allowed under policy, so why not stop with the personal attacks on everyone involved with NEWT and stop beating the same animal? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stop defending the indefensible? The fellow who started the newt page changed the sock policy to suit his purposes. That it persists there is an ongoing embarressment (I won't fight that battle because i don't have the clout). Again, when someone seeks a position of trust, recent examples of game-playing and deceit (that it involved marginal BLPs is just icing on the cake) are germane. I'm sorry that you don't like it. You can stop beating the dead horse whenever you'd like.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the fact is that it was a part of the policy since 2004 and removed without any discussion. The restoration of it was a form of WP:BRD. And, in fact, I am disengaging now. Feel free to continue with your blatant mistruths. — Ed   (talk •  majestic titan)  20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear. I believe that lying and game playing like that is destructive, whatever some editor quietly edits a policy to say about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cut out the hyperbole. NEWT was created entirely in good faith, and anyone who doubts clearly doesn't understand its purpose. All measures were taken to ensure that the sockpuppetry policy was not infringed upon, and at the time, it seemed like an excellent way to test, document, and experiment with the NPP process. Once people started objecting, the project was effectively shut down and nothing else came out of. That SoWhy happened to take part in it may be a lapse in judgment, but a deliberate attempt to deceive other contributors? No. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You really aren't paying attention. I have no interest in good faith/bad faith, intentions, ideational notions, etc... I'm solely concerned in this instance with actions. The actions involved: Deceit, game-playing, baiting and the creation of terrible articles. Sockpuppetry and edits like this are examples of deliberate deceit. These diffs demonstrate mendacity and and a "deliberate attempt to deceive." . I'm willing to accept in your bizarre world that a lie isn't a lie, but it's not the world i live in.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, surely you've got evidence SoWhy, and other NEWT participants, actually lied? The word "lie" is defined as "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood." Until you can show me that the candidate truly lied, and presented false information as truth, you've got no argument there. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The diffs are the evidence. You're now arguing about what the definition of is, is, by the way. Merriam-Websters has: " 1. to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. 2. to create a false or misleading impression." The whole performance was a lie.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, where's the evidence? Did SoWhy ever edit under his sock to post intentionally misleading statements? Did he ever lie about his alternative account? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So if we ignore intentions, this would appear like a repeated personal attack on some established editors - perhaps we should give you a block, Bali ultimate? Of course not! Your intentions here are to explain your comments, not to attack other editors, so that would be a stupid idea, but if we use your logic then it wouldn't be! Yes, with hindsight NEWT was an idea that was badly implemented, but that does not mean that all of the participants should be castigated as liars. They entered the project assuming that the idea was to create an alternative account, which they properly notified ArbCom about, then created articles which while not adequate were not to meet the CSD. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with NEWT, but that does not mean that you have the right to attack the participants while assuming bad faith, which is what you appear to be doing. ArbCom did not prohibit NEWT, the WMF did not prohibit it, Jimbo doesn't appear to have said that it shouldn't have happened - and I can't find evidence of the then-'crats saying (before it was implemented) that NEWT should not take place. Unless you are saying that ArbCom, the WMF, Jimbo and the 'crats were unaware of the discussions taking place about the proposed project? Just my 0.02 --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored. Not your place to move it. On topic, mostly about the candidate.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is common practice to move discussion to the talk page, and your removal of my notice from your talk page (whilst justified) is frankly childish. My movement of the oppose was not to somehow weaken your arguments, or to hide any facts about the candidate. It was made to tidy up the page, as is common practice. Any serious judge of SoWhy's RfB will check the talk page for content, too. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, if you haven't figured it out, BU isn't going to change his mind. So just walk away. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball's vote
RE: In reply to Ucucha to avoid more clogging of main page, yes its a matter of opinion i guess. I read the ANI discussion and it seemed like the emphases was on him not being allowed to insist on having a full run at RfA himself and not being allowed to disrupt other RfAs and RfA talk. There was a package proposal that a majority supported which technically can be read as banning him totally from RfA including maybe even votes on a RfB, but it doesnt look like WGB was clearly advised about that. He seemed to have complied with the spirit of the discussion, rather poor form that hes now been blocked IMO, another example of why theres a need for inititives like Newt so we can better treat folk who dont get Wiki culture. Anyway if anyone strongly thinks the vote ought to be removed i wont revert again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I added the "RE" section, quoting the main page, and changed the title slightly so editors will know FeydHuxtable is referring to a user. Ikip 20:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In reality, it probably doesn't matter. It won't affect the outcome of this RfB (save a huge surge in support), and he won't be participating in any further discussions. Tan   &#124;   39  20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but regardless of that ambiguities like this are better avoided. Ucucha 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the person who indented it, I did that as they had been blocked, and I was under the impression that blocked editors' votes would be ignored. If I had done it as I considered it a violation of the ANI "ban" (which as far as I recall was never formalised), then I would have noted it as Indented !vote as this user is under a ban from commenting. However, having said that, I have no objection to this being unindented as it has been - if blocked user's !votes are eligible to be counted, then it is correct for it to be here. In regard to the 'ban' - I am not sure if it would be in force, as the editor was never formally notified of a ban (merely a proposal for one) as far as I am aware, and although the consensus was nearly unanimously in favour of such a ban (which I would interpret as including RfB), it was not formally 'ratified'. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Iirc correctly, we only indent !votes if they were cast by editors who were banned from editing, i.e. if at the time of the !vote they were not allowed to edit. If they were blocked afterwards, they were allowed to edit at this time and thus their !vote was valid. If they were banned from RFX though, that might be another reason to consider indenting. I would let a crat decide it though. Regards  So Why  22:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true, I believe. Steve is right that WGB was never formally notified that he had been banned from RFA. Although consensus for the ban was overwhelming and WGB commented immediately following a post where BWilkins concluded that the proposal has been approved, discussion continued and WGB himself apparently did not understand that he had been banned from RFA. With such uncertainties, I agree with SoWhy that it'd be best if the vote stands for now and the bureaucrats decide what to do with it (though I'm obviously biased as I voted in favor - perhaps some people who opposed or did not voice an opinion may also want to comment?). Ucucha 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO SoWhy (Who is up at 91 as I write this) does not need the controversial vote, it would leave an argument point. However, if he wants it included, then I can't say I'd stop him. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

< I don't see this as being a complicated issue. was banned from participating in RfXs at the time, so it obviously doesn't count. Just because he didn't agree (hence the phrase "ban") or didn't understand (or is disingenuously pretending not to understand, as he has done before) makes no difference. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sheriff  ─╢ 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal said he was banned from RFA. As I said, it is reasonable to interpret that as including RFB, but you seem to be misquoting his ban. Yes, it's possible that he pretended not to have understood--but impossible to tell. He's done other strange things, and it's true, he wasn't formally notified of being banned from RFA. Ucucha 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It should have been obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee, let alone to someone with a command of the English language as competent as his, in my opinion. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 19:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ucucha is just pointing out what WGB might have understood. Personally, while I am grateful for all the support I get, don't think his !vote is in any way crucial to this request. Maybe we should just leave a note at WP:BN and a crat can decide about it, saving us all some discussion? Regards  So Why  19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be swell, as long as its clearly stated that contary to the perception of some, WGB was not in fact banned at the time of his vote. All that happened was that a long rambling discussion took place, where a clear majority expressed support for one of several package proposals that included a clause saying WGB ought not comment at RFA. The discussion didnt make clear what the actual ban would be; even the supporters were arguing about the details of the proposal including the length of the ban. The discussion came to a close without WGB being formerly advised he was banned. All it would have required was an admin to tell him clearly on his talk or even close the discussion advising on the outcome, but that didnt happen (or not untill it was resolved after the indef block, which happened after he voted,)  A ban not communicated is not a ban, however clear the intent might have been in some peoples minds. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with TreasuryTag (although not necessarily the way it was phrased...) that WGB's command of English is competent enough to understand the language of the discussion, and although I feel that WGB was correctly blocked for their behaviour towards other editors, I feel that despite the fact that it was obvious to anyone reading the discussion (see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball) that the concensus was to ban WGB from RfA (which I personally assumed would cover RfB), WGB never showed acceptance of this, and no notice was ever left on his User Talk page detailing that the ban had begun. A couple of editors recommended closing the discussion as "Mark this as resolved in favor of Bwilkins's proposal", but no formal closing of the discussion took place. Realistically, from what we have seen of WGB, they will not accept their "wrong-doing", let alone promise not to repeat his actions - in which case they will remain blocked. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)