Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton

I have a question regarding a phrasing in point 12 under "Evidence of disputed behavior".
 * ...closed the VfD discussion prematurely as though he were an administrator

I have closed a few debates, some of them contentious, for instance Toowoomba Grammar School, and SamuraiClinton's article Monsters_from_Duke_Nukem_3D; and I am not an administrator. Can't anyone close a VfD-debate which ends in anything except delete? I got a few angry retorts on the Votes for Deletion talkpage (here) telling me to start working on that when I called upon the administrators to work faster with closing debates. Of course, the person who does so takes on a responsibility to do the right thing, and I can easily see that SamuraiClinton did the wrong thing here, "keep", and not "merge and redirect" was of course the right conclusion, so that was not the point. Also, am I right in thinking that a nominator when faced with a change of heart (either because of a barrage og "keep" votes, or a complete rewrite) may withdraw his nomination before the lag time runs out, close the debate and conclude "Nomination withdrawn", and that SamuraiClinton would have been justified in doing so? Hope so, because I've done that too... (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Koraput:Gupteswar Caves).

Any thoughts? Sjakkalle 11:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * From the Guide to VfD: At the end of a period from when the nomination of an article was listed, known as the lag time, an administrator in the VFD cleaning department reviews an article's VFD discussion, determines what the rough consensus is, and closes it. If there's precedent for non-administrators helping out with closing out VfD discussions from time to time, so be it, but it's against policy. (If they need the help that badly, maybe they can "deputize" some of us or something.) I believe SamuraiClinton would have been justified in doing the "nomination withdrawn" thing, but that would not have achieved his stated goal; that is, merging and redirecting would not have been justified in that case, given the overwhelming consensus to keep. android↔talk 12:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at this specific case yet, but vfds ending in outcomes other than delete certainly can be closed by non-administrators. Doing so early for anything but speedy deletes and strong, unanimous keeps, including from the original nominator, is a bad idea, though.  &mdash;Korath (Talk) 12:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * (My comment above was posted via edit conflict.) Non-admin closes have long predated WP:GVFD; I'll hunt around for the specific bits of policy if you like. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 12:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do so; I've been using GVFD as the Bible, and if there are apocryphal texts out there, it's best that we resolve the conflicts. android↔talk 12:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been closing out "speedy delete" VfDs where the deletion has already occurred, but the admin forgot to close the debate. In general, I see nothing wrong with non-admins closing VfDs, as long as the user didn't participate in the debate, and the result is clear. --Carnildo 18:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have also sometimes closed VfD debates (mostly for the "already speedy deleted" and "already redirected and consensus to redirect" cases), and I'm not an admin. Nobody seems to have complained, and I recall seeing a comment somewhere lost in the talk pages saying it can be done. --cesarb 23:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason a non-admin can't close debates when there is no consensus for deletion ("keeps"). Non-admins can even close out votes resulting in deleteion, if an admin is on-board to "push the button". To avoid problems, I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in doing this maintenance start simply (closing out debates which are very clear) and to avoid closing out debates which you've voted on or are otherwise involved. -- Netoholic @ 14:17, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)


 * Non-admins closing delete debates works on WP:TFD and WP:CFD because they're (relatively) low-volume and there's significant work that needs to be done between a decision and deletion, but it's too easy for things to get lost on VFD. See also Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 14:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've just spent a couple hours searching, and, erm, I can't find it in anything official. Circumstantial evidence: Wikipedia talk:Guide to Votes for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Guide to Votes for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, Cleaning department, Requests for adminship/Dbenbenn, and the fact that not once has anyone complained about the five hundred or so vfds I've closed since mid-February. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 14:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) The problem is not that a non-admin closed the VFD, it is that he did it 2 1/2 days after opening the VFD, and that he asserted a non-existent consensus on merge/redirect. FreplySpang (talk) 15:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See, all this time, I'd assumed you were an admin because you were closing VfDs. Funny. android↔talk 14:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

My comment retribution
Back then, I didn't clearly realize the rules of article editing on Wikipedia. Despite of that I still have good Wikipedian intentions. I thought some rules had exceptions, but I will have better article writing skills in the future.

Please forgive me, I don't want a ban imposed on me. I don't really google-test names for new articles because I figure it is realistic enough.

I don't do any fictional nonsense on Wikipedia anymore; I target realism now; please forgive me. --TheSamurai 19:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No one's trying to ban you nor have you done anything that really requires forgiveness. Regarding the so-called "Mr. Suffix" neologisms, I'd say all is already forgiven now that you understand things better.  I'll say it again:  Everyone here is trying to help.  That's the whole point of a request for comment.  A request for arbitration is different.  That's where someone brings up another user on serious charges and the bureaucrats determine what is to be done.  Usually, those range from short-term bans and edit restrictions to out-and-out hard banning.  Since you're not doing anything malicious, I wouldn't lose any sleep about this situation going that far. - Lucky 6.9 19:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment
Perhaps the best solution would be for SamuraiClinton to simply work more on existing articles and less on new ones? That way, xe could be guided by existing formatting. Meelar (talk) 19:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggested that to him a while back. I think that would still be an excellent approach. Samurai, do you agree? Rhobite 19:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds like part of a workable solution. If Samurai were to work mostly on established articles, it would shift the burden at least a little from those of us who have been watching his contributions to the main editors of those articles. Two more necessary constraints, IMO, would be "no new templates" and "no new categories" unless properly justified. android↔talk 21:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

An Experiment
Recent contributions by SamuraiClinton will give us an opportunity for an experiment. Samurai, you just created the Culture of Traverse City article, and added a merge directive to the Tourism section of Traverse City, Michigan. Now, I'm of the opinion – and I'm reasonably certain I'm not alone here – that you've got the merge backwards: the content in the culture article would fit in just fine in the main article on the city. Your challenge: move the stuff from Culture of Traverse City to Traverse City, Michigan and turn it into a well-written, encyclopedic contribution. You've got some content; let's see what you can do with it. Feel free to ask anyone (especially those of us participating in this RfC) for help. android↔talk 22:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Count me in. Go for it, Sam! - Lucky 6.9 22:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this "experiment" here. I have already merged what I could and redirected the culture article. older &ne; wiser 23:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind. I should have left something on the relevant articles' talk pages. android↔talk 23:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

My response to all this!
Back then, I have encountered many loopholes with Wikipedia. Nowadays, my intentions are better. You may see several article on VfD, but that should't indicate that much suspicion.

Please, just let me be a free Wikipedian. My intentions are at the zenith of being rightful, not bogus. I may have trouble contrasting approved of and bogus contributions, but I should't be in trouble for making bogus contributions. People say that I am also User:SuperDude115, but I am not. Writing style shouldn't identify one individual, it could reference multiple ones.

Just, stop doing RfCs on me, I am here to contribute articles rightfully, and read them, not to do intentional vandalism on them. --TheSamurai 02:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, I'll say it again: This is the reason we're discussing this issue.  You're asking "please oh please let me work here I'll be good" and you just keep doing the same thing over and over again without responding to any of the concerns raised.  I'll make you an offer.  Gentleman's agreement.  If you agree to it, you won't be bound by it.  Only condition:  Drop the "SuperDude 115" sockpuppet.  The next time you have the urge to write an article, let me know what you're planning on writing about.  I'll advise you whether it belongs in a new article or an existing one.  Once you add the information, let me know.  If there are any changes needed to style, punctuation, grammar and the like, I'll do the changes and let you know in return what I did so you can see any differences.  This way, you can continue to edit without fear of getting your work run up on the VfD page.  I really want to help you and I figure the best way to do this is to literally teach you how to contribute here.  Deal? - Lucky 6.9 17:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm also willing to participate in a "tutorial" as Lucky has described. However, my patience is wearing thin. This is yet another non-response from you – you have failed to address any of the specific concerns we have brought up. Time and again we've heard that you have good intentions, but you continue to persist with behavior that is time-consuming to correct and lowers the overall quality of Wikipedia. The appearance of SuperDude115, who many of us believe to be your sockpuppet, is especially troubling. Wikipedia policy is, as always, to assume good faith, but that is becoming very difficult. android↔talk 21:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Android's right. You're not really responding so much as pleading.  Part of one of your own comments sums it up best:  "I may have trouble contrasting approved of and bogus contributions."  Personally, I'm willing to let your lack of real response slide in lieu of your participating in a tutorial.  Promise that (a) you'll put away the sockpuppet and (b) that you agree to our proposal in writing on this page and (c) stick by the agreement at least until you're up to speed on what goes on around here.  Good faith is getting harder to assume.  Don't let us down. - Lucky 6.9 22:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This just about tears it for me. Look at the time stamp on my initial offer.  I wrote it at 1713 UTC today.  At 1849 UTC, a SuperDude115 non-article called Impulse buying was written and is already on VfD.  This is it, Sam.  If you wish to continue to contribute, either you respond to this concern ASAP or I will be taking this matter to an arbitration committee. - Lucky 6.9 22:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * MY RESPONSE-I keep telling people, I already typed a comment; y are people requesting comments? Even though my articles are on VfD, I still have good intentions for Wikipedia.  Sometimes, bogus contributions will be mistaken for rightful ones.  I have poor contrast between acceptable and bogus contributions.  Just let me be! --SuperDude 23:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He created another non-article at Magic sword. I'm going to speedy delete it, but i've left it up for a bit so non-admins can see the ridiculous non-content.  I can no longer assume good faith for this user.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey! What's wrong with Magic sword? Aside from the generally poor writing and lack of organization? It does have more or less factual cruft in it. No speedy available! Never mind. &mdash; Xiong 熊 talk * 00:08, 2005 August 16 (UTC)


 * My friend, your admission that you have problems differentiating between good and bad edits is part of the reason I offered to help tutor you. I don't know whether you read my offer before you made Impulse buying under one name and Magic sword under the other, so it's difficult for me to assume whether or not you went off on your own without knowing or you chose to ignore my plea.  One way or another, you are really ticking off a number of users on this site.  This site is open content and all are welcome to contribute, but just being asked to be "let be" doesn't cut the mustard if you aren't willing to abide by the rules of this community.  There is a learning curve here.  I went through some rather rough times here myself starting out.  However, I learned from my mistakes.  I lost out on three administrator nominations (not self-nominations, by the way) not because of my writing but because of conflict.  Once again, I learned from my mistakes and that's why I'm trying to help you do the same!  Don't you get it, Sam? - Lucky 6.9 01:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently, he doesn't get it. I meandered over to Postdlf's talk page and found this all-too-familiar litany from SuperDude:  I have no intent for vandalism. My modern contributions are thought of as good additions to Wikipedia. Also, I don't cosider all (just some) VfD articles to be vandalism. Can you explain what contributions are considered vandalism, if you do, I might have better contrast between bogus and acceptable contributions in the future. --SuperDude 21:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Lucky 6.9 22:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glimmer of hope
Please see Grand Theftendo for a real glimmer of hope. The initial entry was not only quite good, the subject is actually notable! - Lucky 6.9 06:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMPORTANT development
Take a look at this note from my talk page. I'd left word with another user (can't remember which one) stating my assumption that this individual is autistic. Seems I may have been correct. This was on my page:

''HTH did you find out I was austistic? What kind of Wikipedians have this kind of intuition? It's just bizarre that autism is discovered by remote intuition. --SuperDude 15:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)''

I feel like a heel. - Lucky 6.9 15:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I do, too. I've long suspected autism or Asperger's syndrome (which some refer to as 'high-functioning' autism), ever since I discovered that SC had some edits reverted in the Autism article – something about autism and romantic relationships that seemed to have come from personal experience. However, since Asperger's is difficult enough to detect during person-to-person contact, let alone over the Internet, I figured any assumptions on my part would be a gross violation of Wikiquette, and SC's recent edits just seemed more trollish to me than anything else, so I shelved that theory. Now I wish I had been more bold, but c'est la vie. Now that we've discovered the source of our frustrations (I wouldn't be surprised to find that SC was just as frustrated with us as we were with him) we can sort this thing out. android↔talk 16:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. SC's comment could just as easily be read as sarcasm. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd totally agree if not for his opening sentence. Without it, you're right.  It does sound sarcastic.  I truly don't think it is since Sam has no history of leaving disparaging or sarcastic comments other than that sockpuppet one he posted to his own page.  So what happens now?  This revelation has changed my whole outlook on this issue. - Lucky 6.9 17:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now what?
Okay, we are apparently agreed on the situation here, per the summaries above (basically, Good Faith but somewhat misguided). Any thoughts on what we can do about it? Radiant_* 09:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, he needs to decide whether to use the old SamuraiClinton username or continue with the new SuperDude115 username. He hasn't made an edit as SamuraiClinton for some time, so he may have already made this decision. I know multiple usernames are generally okay, but in light of the sockpuppetry, I think we should strongly encourage him to stick with just one username. As for the editing... some folks here believe that he has turned a corner based on the Grand Theftendo article, though I'm still extremely skeptical. Continued monitoring is probably all that should be done at this point, but if there's any sign that things are going to get out of hand again, something rather severe should be done, though I will leave to more experienced Wikipedians to suggest what that might be. android↔talk 12:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I don't mind monitoring his edits and either reverting them if they're unsuitable and/or advise him how the edit should have been made.  If whatever he does turns out to be disruptive, it's unlikely it's out of malice.  Once he agrees on a user name (which appears to be "SuperDude115" at this juncture), we should assist in creating his user page and delete the sockpuppet accounts.  We may wish to go back to our original concept of treading lightly.  If another strange article comes our way, we should try to avoid running it through the wringer over at VfD and either speedy delete, redirect or expand his contribs until he's fully up to speed.  Gently, of course.  How about it, SuperDude115?  Are you ready to become a Wikipedian in good standing with a little help from your friends? - Lucky 6.9 18:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since he admitted he has autism, I argee with Lucky 6.9 that we should tread lightly and be gentle with him. And most importantly: do not get stressed or impatient about him. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move to close
Radiant_* 15:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. android↔talk 15:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. And special thanks to User:Lucky 6.9 for his patience and understanding through it all. Also there is no reason for Lucky to feel like a heel. ;-) hydnjo talk 16:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no accepted procedure to "close" any RFC. In due time, one of the admins monitoring the page will either delete uncertified RFC's (which this one is not), or move it to Archive when this becomes inactive for a couple weeks. Please leave things as they are. -- Netoholic @ 22:24, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I think we all agree that the matter itself is settled. - Lucky 6.9 06:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)