User talk:Serpent's Choice/Archive 5

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject: Dungeons & Dragons

Hi! I’ve been working on a lot of ‘’Dungeons & Dragons’’ articles lately and saw that you were a member of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons), and am inviting you to rejoin Wikipedia’s D&D group. I've been hard at work removing tags placed inappropriately on D&D articles, as well as modifying articles to remove tags that were placed legitimately. In addition, I have been compiling related articles together so that the articles are longer, making it easier to remove tags and to have short articles on lesser topics by just putting it into another appropriate article (links to such compiled articles can be found on my userpage). Check out the project here , and ask any questions that you may have here. Thank you for your time. Drilnoth (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR notification

Letting you know I've opened a GAR for Shared universe. You can see my concerns on the talk page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Faiths and Pantheons cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Faiths and Pantheons cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Courcelles 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Request re YellowMonkey

Just wanted to say that as someone who's been monitoring the situation but has little to say on the matter, your request struck me as very well written. My personal feeling is that YM does not appear to be living up to the standards one should expect when dealing with an admin, so it's nice to see something being done about this. Thank you for your efforts. Doniago (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. I suspect this is going to be ... an experience for me, as well. I've certainly never been within 20 miles of an ArbCom case. But the RFC was increasingly looking like a room full of people waiting for someone to actually stand up and open the door. So, we'll see how things go. It's all rather disappointing, really. I hope that, somehow, there's still some reasonable conclusion this can all be brought to other than the obvious one, even if I certainly can't see one. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Given YellowMonkey with enough pushing did improve on semi-protections I think we may see some improvement here too with what is largely issues with blocking. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't see any improvement being likely as long as YM continues his pattern of non-responsiveness, which is by far my biggest concern regarding this whole situation. It is very difficult for me to assume good faith regarding his actions when he won't even talk about them. I rather admire your decision to open the door for others, though. Reminds me of when people suggested deleting/moving the Asperger Syndrome article but nobody would actually follow procedure to make it happen (probably because they were all SomethingAwful trolls). I got tired of the discussion and finally made a formal move/delete proposal myself. After all, making a proposal doesn't mean you support it. (smile) I hope you won't get too much flak for actually pushing things forward. Doniago (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of communication is of course the compounding factor in all of this. Even after the March AN/I about semi-protection, the bulk of his uses of it aren't strictly in compliance with the policy. I do understand what he was trying to do with a lot of them, though, and if there had just been dialogue about it, things would have been smoother; maybe the community could have had a discussion about whether some of his uses of semi-protection (preemptively on school articles, for example) should be okay. But that's not what happened, and so here we are. As for me, I really don't have anything to hide or any disputes hiding in the closet (except for a terribly intermittent editing history due to illness, mostly). If I get flak, I get flak. I still think this is what is right. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say - even though I disagree with the request, I'm glad it was you who filed it because it was a good and fair filing. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's reasonable grounds to disagree on some aspects of the situation. He's defended his use of semi-protection at AN/I, although it still just isn't compatible with the current policy. Is that acceptable? He's stated that he replies to inquiries on his talk page; to the extend that he does reply to inquiries, that is true, but he leaves a lot of questions there and elsewhere unanswered. Objectively, he skips important steps -- block notices, page protection templates, sock puppet block notices -- and has for years. Is that just an annoyance, or does it rise to the lack of communication cited in Betacommand's desysop case? These problems have been known, and known to him, for a long time; it's a little surprising to me in that regard that there was never a prior RFC. On the other hand, increasingly, the RFC we do have is a "debate" as to whether the participants constitute a witch hunt or a lynch mob. At the risk of assuming bad faith, I'm not sure that a wider-scoped RFC would be a very pleasant, much less constructive, place to sort things out. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious - have you followed previous admin misconduct RfArs, or previous RfCU's for admin conduct? I agree that your case request was well organized and clearly written, but the actual allegations underlying them lack the sort of substance that normally prompts committee action. Any thoughts on what remedies you think are appropriate, given the evidence you've presented? I'm assuming that your outline describes the most serious allegations against YellowMonkey, is that correct? Nathan^T 17:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to only a passing survey of past administrative RFC/Us. On the other hand, I made myself as reasonably familiar with prior admin RFARs as I could before filing. I disagree strongly about the substance of the allegations. The core problem is communication, which was in fact the central premise of a very well-known 2007 case, and mentioned in other filings. YellowMonkey's actions have violated policy-based communication requirements. This isn't really about what templates he does or doesn't use; the problem is the lack of communication for literally hundreds of administrative actions (I haven't tried to get a specific count, and that would be legitimately nitpicking, but if there were a thousand of them, I'd not be surprised, sadly). By all appearances, he has done excellent article work, and I will be the first person to agree that some of the people he's blocked (often again and again and again) are among the worst that Wikipedia has ever had to offer. But admins aren't islands, and there's a burden -- a policy burden -- that makes blocking (and page protection) more involved than clicking the tool button. And he hasn't done that, almost at all. For years. And despite several efforts in the past to bring the problem to his attention. Do I think this deserves desysopping? I have steadfastly refused to call for it. I would like to believe there's another option, but it has to start with addressing how this has all happened, and why nothing changed from a nontrivial number of attempts to bring it to his attention before.

As for more serious allegations, if the ones I've focused on aren't considered grave, I have become aware that there are editors in the India/Vietnam area who will probably assert that he's used blocks and semi-protects to enforce a biased point of view in certain articles. I'm limited in my ability to make firm claims here, because I do not understand the content disputes well enough to fairly judge what is a differing viewpoint and what is an unacceptable fringe POV. I can state that he has employed semi-protection on articles in which he has a lengthy history of editorial contributions and where there has been a history of contribution from IP addresses. I can also state that other editors feel he has used tools to further disputes; honestly, I think the only reason his two blocks of Quigley didn't make it to RFC/U was that he's been afforded an immense amount of deference out of respect -- on its face, it's an uglier situation than what got us to RFC/U to start with.

By means of clarification, too, here are some of the direct policy quotes I'm running with:

"Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the fact." There just cannot be hundreds of good reasons. This has been remarked on many times, and at least one block was overturned by another admin almost entirely on this ground.
"[B]locks designated as "Checkuser blocks" ... [are] blocks relying on confidential checkuser findings. [Checkuser block policy] does not apply to ordinary blocks by an administrator who happens to be a Checkuser, but is not relying on checkuser data in deciding to block." My problem isn't that he's using CU outside of SPI (although others have complained in the past), but that he is blocking people without any on-wiki discussion or evidence and without marking them as checkuser blocks.
"Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked." This relates to the checkuser block issue, but the three or four most seriously defective of YellowMonkey's blocks have all suffered from this problem, too. The sockpuppet blocks with no master listed in the block log, no checkuser block notice, and no puppet master template placed on the user page are particularly hard for other admins to follow up on. There were several attempts by other admins to get him to leave them more to work with, but this has been going on unchanged for at least a year.

And of course, the bottom line project is that when editors or admins have brought these concerns to him in the past ... nothing has happened (often, no response occurs at all). So ... I hope that helps. If you'd like to see more diffs or have any other questions about just exactly what the hell that Serpent's Choice guy is thinking ... please, ask. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For additional specific evidence that the cited actions rise to the level of an ArbCom case, see especially FOF #3 and 4 from this 2005-2006 case and the CSCWEM "case"[1]. Admittedly, nothing is an particularly exact match to these circumstances, but no declined cases appear to be either, that I can tell. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the CSCWEM case is one reason (among many) why I don't think the accusations against YM rise to the level of desysopping - by the time MBisanz (if I remember correctly) reported CSCWEM to ArbCom, he'd been entirely incommunicado for months despite blocking many, many people. Many of the blocks were improper, possibly script assisted, and CSCWEM didn't reply either to an RFC or the ArbCom case. Even then, again without really looking, I think his desysop was provisional until he returned and could explain. Nathan^T 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CSCWEM case was ... weird, as I understand it. Basically, he blocked a ton of people with no notification or content. ArbCom concluded that was probably sufficient for a case, but everyone believed he'd quit, so they deferred the case until his return, if ever. Then, several months later, he snuck back and blocked a half-dozen more, so got summary desysopping for his temerity instead of an actual case. Clearly, circumstances aren't quite the same. But, in my eyes, if a hundred blocks without notification or log message are worth considering a case for, then several hundred blocks that lack notification (but do have log messages of not-always-ideal quality), plus several hundred semi-protections that lack notification (and often justification), plus a couple of roguish deletions, plus the fact that people have been asking him to stop doing that stuff off and on for years, plus allegations of involved tool use (not all of which I'll be addressing, myself -- really, I suspect some people need added to the case) also merits consideration of a case. Do I think even all of that rises to the level of desysopping? I will continue to be strident about my lack of a call for de-adminship. But the dispute resolution body isn't DesysopCom, it's ArbCom. Stripping the bits off people isn't -- or certainly shouldn't be! -- the only expected outcome when an admin's conduct is reviewed by the body. As an personal side note, I hope they don't go with the deferred adjudication thing they used with CSCWEM and A Nobody; it never seems to end well, and if people under deferred adjudication do return later, it's a nightmare to make sure that the evidence that should have been presented ... well, is. Serpent's Choice (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you comment here? Candy o32 22:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding a case request about User:YellowMonkey

Passed by a vote of 8-2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration (filed 30 November 2010) concerning administrator actions by YellowMonkey, which followed a request for comment on similar issues (certified 23 November). Although YellowMonkey responded to the original issues raised in the request for comment, he has not edited since 24 November 2010 (six days before the arbitration request was filed) and has not yet been afforded the opportunity to address the new issues raised in the request for comment or in this arbitration request. Accordingly, the arbitration request is declined as premature, and those wishing to engage in dispute resolution on this matter (including YellowMonkey) are directed to the request for comment or other appropriate venues.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Deletion review of AFD you participated in

FYI: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27#last-minute rescue. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic) (2nd nomination)

Did you mean to close that AfD, or were you asking for an admin. to close it as such? CycloneGU (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving my !vote that it should be a procedural close. I'm not active enough these days to jump into the BOLDness of a non-admin closure on those grounds. In retrospect, that edit summary was not the best-worded thing I've ever done... Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, he's closed it himself now after I mentioned it on his talk page. Apparently he wasn't aware of the short turnaround. CycloneGU (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]