User talk:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The purpose of this enquiry is to gauge feeling and gain understanding concerning allegations surrounding RLevse and his departure and the manner in which both have been handled. It is not to establish guilt or to pass sentance. In order to keep things succinct and to the point. I will pose questions upon which others may comment. To keep order: Only I will ask the questions. I will not be answering them. Anything off topic and/or rambling will be removed. This is going to be quite strictly enforced to keep the page readable and as short as possible. A the enquiry continues, I will pose further questions for debate. It is hoped that at the conclusion of this enquiry we will all have a better understanding of the events of last few days and those running the project will be able to learn from the experience.

• A timeline of pertinent diffs is here

Should RLevse return and explain his action and writing?

• Perhaps we should ban him until such time as he does so?--Misarxist 15:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is a volunteer project. If someone chooses to leave then we should respect their right to do so. I would prefer that RLevse returned, resolved matters and ideally eventually regained the trust of the whole community, but RLevse like all of us has a choice in these matters and as I understand it has chosen to retire. ϢereSpielChequers 16:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Misarxist is right, Rlevse should be indef blocked, just like happened to this guy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• The excessively strident rhetoric displayed by a few people on this and other pages have probably ended any possibility that Rlevse would consider doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Are you speaking in his behalf, or is this an assumption on your part?  Giacomo  17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's been several days since I've had any form of communication with Rlevse. From a combination of my limited contact with him before then and his actions, my impression is that he initially decided to retire after the issues with Grace Sherwood were raised, then was reconsidering for a short while, and then involved RTV and left for good based on the extreme level of hostility he was experiencing from a small portion of the community.

Giano, I know that you've had past disagreements with Rlevse. I sat with him as an arbitrator for two years, and God knows so did I sometimes—given the need for confidentiality of our mailing list, more differences than you will ever know about. But he volunteered his time and his efforts to the project for five years, and so far as I am concerned he always acted in good faith while doing so, despite all the differences between his ways of approaching some issues and mine. I don't need to get into the debate about how serious the deficiencies of the writing of some of his articles might have been—my view is that they should neither be trivialized nor exaggerated.

But I think that some people have utterly lost sight of the fact that there was and is a human being who contributed his time and efforts to the project. There was absolutely no need to hurt that person as badly as I believe we have done in the course of addressing the that issues were identified, and the failure to distinguish between the need for article-cleanup and the lack of need for vindictive expressions of spleen has sadly permeated every aspect of this discussion from its inception. Any "suppression" that occurred here sought not to conceal the existence of concerns about the writing of a few articles, but to avoid further and unnecessary hurt and harm to the person who volunteered his time to write them.

Rlevse, especially after he has vanished from us, is a poor target for your undoubted rhetorical skills. Speaking only for myself, I cannot escape the conclusion that this inquisition, in every one of its aspects beginning with the title, is a pointless and unnecessary one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Brad. I hope we shall discover why this situation has been so painful and that remedies will be taken in future to prevent a recurrance. That is why we are here.  Giacomo  18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes indeed, he should un-retire & help fix up his mess. However, there's no way to force someone to un-retire. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think he can be forced to return, so that conversation is a dead end. I do think that blocking and/or banning and/or investigations should take place even in his self-enforced in absentia status. One does not stop the wheels of justice by fleeing the courtroom.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that he can't be forced to return (assuming he existed). The other point has come up twice now, so, for the purposes of streamlining the discussion; the Rlevse account is already indefinitely blocked and a CCI has already been opened. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Tx, Demi. All that sounds good -- but for some reason I can't find either (I've tried). Might I trouble you to provide the links? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure where to put this in all the conversation that has since ensued, but for convenience, the CCI is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 2 --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the above: The user formerly known as Rlevse is now known as Renamed editor(whatever number Avi used). All of Rlevse's contributions are in the process of being migrated to that other account name, although it may take weeks to months due to volume (over 93K edits). There is no User:Rlevse anymore; as part of the normal process for renaming editors, that account has now been usurped and blocked in order to prevent a vandal or other disruptive editor from assuming that username and creating havoc while pretending to be former user Rlevse. Risker (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That isn't quite the case; Rlevse was renamed to User:Vanished 6551232 and blocked indefinitely under that name. The name "Rlevse" is not currently registered, and so cannot be blocked. You can verify this by consulting the respective block logs. Best, Skomorokh 21:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. On looking, I realise that Avi did not need to block the Rlevse account because it was already SUL, preventing its re-creation. Unfortunately, there have been several episodes where abandoned usernames have subsequently been taken over intentionally by vandals, to the point that it has become routine to ensure that such accounts aren't left exposed. Risker (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarifications. I guess that leaves me with the further questions of: a) why it was renamed (e.g., is this a technical way for the editor himself to avoid a block or ban?), b) whether the account can be reconstituted if it is not blocked or banned, and whether the editor can now return under another name if the account he edited under is not blocked or banned, c) should it be blocked or banned, and d) where the CCI is. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  Isn't WP:RTV clear enough? a) Renaming is standard procedure for WP:RTV, which Rlevse has invoked explicitly. I felt it a bit unfortunate that his wish was executed immediately instead of giving him the chance to sleep over it. But this may well be general practice (I have no idea), and in any case we had an explosive situation at ANI that made it understandable that this was expedited. b) After invoking RTV an editor is strongly expected not to return. If they return anyway, it is an Arbcom matter. I don't think there is grounds to keep the connection secret in this case. And since it would come out anyway, Arbcom would be very stupid to allow this. c) The renamed account is blocked but not banned. d) Go to WP:CCI and search for the only "Vanished ..." CCI case. I am sure your help will be welcome. Hans Adler 21:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Tx. Interesting. One of the items of interest I notice in that guideline is that:

  "Vanishing ... is not a right. It is a courtesy .... Sometimes the community will not extend the courtesy: for example, ... if the user is not in good standing. The right to vanish might not be extended to users ... who left when they lost the trust of the community.... Note also that the Wikimedia Foundation does not guarantee that an account's username will be changed on request. Decisions to rename an account or allow a Right To Vanish, if contested or in dispute, are determined by community consensus."

  Has his vanishing been contested or disputed, and if so has a consensus been reached on the matter? And -- perhaps most importantly -- what is the advantage to the editor, or possible disadvantage to the community, of his vanishing?

I also note that the guideline says "the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind." Is he a user in good standing? Or a "problem user" who could tomorrow be a "reformed problem user"?

And, if he were to come back -- which apparently is possible under the guideline -- would he without more come back as a sysop? Absent a de-sysop consideration being initiated? And is that something that he avoids at the moment by "vanishing"?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, RTV requests are normally granted as a matter of course when they are made in the correct way and the user seems to know what it entails. I guess there can be special circumstances in which it would be impossible to grant this courtesy, or inappropriate (e.g. the third RTV request within a year). Since RTV is about privacy, it's necessary to spell this out where we would not normally do so. It's a legal matter. At least this is how it all appears to me.

I think there were two advantages for Rlevse: Making it easier to actually leave, which he was trying to do but found hard to do. (The addiction that we all feel. See his editing history on Commons, where he handed in his bits and asked for them back shortly afterwards, even commenting on the addiction.) And it reduced the enormous stress. Apparently he had been watching all the commotion, and that must have been extremely stressful. I don't think there is a real disadvantage for the community. It's not clear how much he could have helped with the CCI anyway, and what else do you expect?

Rlevse left in good standing but under somewhat cloudy conditions. See this discussion. Given how contentious the situation is, I would expect that if and when he returns nobody will grant him any Wikipedia bits without on-wiki discussion. One can imagine a scenario in which he privately contacts Arbcom that he is returning under a new account, makes an edit to his user page to set up the connection, and immediately asks successfully for his admin bit. I think this would be an exceptionally bad idea, and granting it to him without widespread discussion would be even worse. I have no doubt it will be undone if it should happen. But let's not speculate how much more can go wrong. Hans Adler 22:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again. Very helpful. Perhaps there is some benefit to him in the future by his remaining in good standing? There certainly seems to be one such benefit in the guidelines itself, as it makes clear that "the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind."

And perhaps he avoided being stripped of his good standing or bit by vanishing. Which, as the above suggests, could be to his advantage if he were to seek to return at some point.

As to the guideline, it certainly seems possible that he fell into the part of it that discusses editors "who left when they lost the trust of the community".--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This sort of speculation about motives is frankly becoming offensive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? We're simply trying to understand the effect of the user's actions. If any. I'm not sure that there is a focus at all on motives. Just the different results if: a) he is allowed to vanish, vs. b) he is not. It seems that there is a difference of some significance. Whether that is his motive or not is not our focus here. Why would one try to censor that discussion?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I’ve had my run-ins with Rlevse before where I thought he was too quick to rush to judgement. But I’ve also seen that he was—overall—fairly reasonably minded. Speaking much more broadly than just Rlevse: his situation should remind us all that in any organization (Wikipedia is an organization)—particularly one where volunteerism is not only important but is central to the organization—it is crucial for individuals to feel appreciated for their efforts. There can be no more of a soul-crushing feeling than to perceive being assailed upon by one’s peers. Bureaucrats look out for the welfare of admins. But the people looking out for our ‘crats are too far & few between to shelter them when a ‘crat’s social network assails him or her so much that they feel their hard work (pure volunteerism at that) is unappreciated. Passing out barnstars is nice, but we need to be careful when pile-ons start. Maybe more of us should begin our posts with something like Darn, Rlevse; you do so much good work on Wikipedia but you somehow managed to dick-up at tad on this one didn’t you? Greg L (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could the Arbcom have handled the matter better and kept the editorship better informed?

Do bears poo in the woods? Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Has attempted suppression of the matter taken place on Wikipedia?

Is the Pope Catholic? Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes at least some aspects of the matter have been suppressed; But we allow that. Our Wikipedia:Username policy allows users to get their accounts renamed, and we allow all users the courtesy of having their userpages deleted on request. Rlevse has apparently taken both those options, as longstanding policy allows. If people don't like that they should propose a policy change for future incidents. There is a separate discussion going on as to whether usertalkpages should be deleted, Rlevse is not the first to have that done, I and others have taken a stricter line re the policy about the deletion of talkpages, I welcome the current discussions that are seeking to clarify that policy and possibly broaden it in line with practice, but I don't see anything unprecedented here. I am not aware of any other attempts to suppress the matter, but don't claim to have followed every twist of this incident. ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment is only to the deletion of the usertalk page without logging - see [1], which shows a 11,604 restoration but no deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an artifact of how the developers have assigned "bigdelete" to stewards and not to administrators on EnWiki. Please take it up with them, but there is nothing anyone on EnWiki can do about it. -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course that means that no suppression of any kind occurred. -- Avi (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that fact. You are correct - if bigdelete doesn't leave public logs, no suppression was intended. Apologies - apparently the Pope converted? Hipocrite (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by suppression. I was one of those who knew from rather early on (about the day after Rlevse "retired") that there were problems in an earlier article. I assumed there would be enough problems to justify starting a CCI case, but due to the high profile I felt it better that the situation be assessed quietly off-wiki, at least until the situation with Rlevse was completely clarified. The main problem, as I see it, was an extreme polarisation coming from uncritical fans and supporters of Rlevse. I assume he accumulated a lot of them through DYK and the "X's Day" programme. They continuously insisted that Rlevse had done nothing wrong at all, that it was just a conspiracy, and that everybody was targeting him unfairly. The only thing they achieved with this was that the actual facts had to be repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and more and more of them were disclosed in an attempt to make them shut up.

I don't think that the Peter Principle has anything to do with what happened, but it's worth reminding everybody of such structural matters that often cause problems. We don't know what to do with the victims of this principle. They are incompetent but it's not really their fault. One must somehow get rid of them, while still respecting all the good things they have also done and all the overtime they have worked for the company. It's a very difficult situation, especially for the immediate colleagues who have come to like and respect the person as is almost inevitable when you have to work closely with someone for a long time. Some colleagues may also be secretly asking themselves whether they have also reached their own level of incompetence. Hans Adler 21:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the solution, if a similar situation happens again?

• It depends:

If the similar situation is an Arb or similar functionary suddenly exposed as doing something that merits their immediate resignation, then I would hope that like Rlevse they would promptly resign all their offices and extra tools. Generally I would prefer that they then continue as an ordinary editor, stop doing whatever was problematic and either help clean their own mess up or help clean up after someone else. But if like Rlevse they choose to leave, then we should accept that.

As for the not infrequent similar situation of experienced editors being found doing copy-paste or overly close paraphrasing, then I would suggest that we need to reconsider how we bring on new editors and educate them to avoid this. We live in a copy-paste world, lots of people out there believe that information should be free. If we are going to hold out against the zeitgeist on this we need to intervene earlier in the wiki careers of those of our editors who do this.

ϢereSpielChequers 18:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• First, avoid calling copyvios plagiarism and vice versa. Second, check a few contribs and if it's a recurring issue, consider opening a CCI (Contributor Copyright Investigation). Third, engage the user directly, possibly considering the use of "I believe there is an issue with some of your contributions" instead of "Hey, you plagiarized, I think you should be blocked". Fourth, work on cleaning up issues rather than create pages after pages of drama. And surprise, surprise, it actually works relatively well even for arbitrators when the flamethrowers are off. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think one factor in all this was the "retirement". I think in most cases "retirement" means that someone really wants to quit, but people usually come back rather soon, under the same account, officially under a new account connected to the old one for transparency, or as a secretly returning user. Depending on how many such "retirements" you have seen and on your relation to the "retiring" user, you will see the matter more or less seriously. You will either hope that the editor returns soon and feel that the odds are too low, or you will be irritated because the odds are so high that this is yet another pseudo-retirement (and actually outright angry if you feel the user is simply avoiding scrutiny). These fundamentally opposite interpretations of the situation tend to cause or increase conflicts. This could be observed very clearly on Rlevse's talk page.
  These retirements are structurally similar to real-life suicide attempts, which tend to be a cry for help. I don't know what we can do about them. Hans Adler 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comment

Battleground

(conversation moved from my talk before commencement NB: My respons of 13:34, 9 November 2010 was before the opening of this enquitry, from this moment I will only be asking questions)

Hi Giano. Firstly I find it a bit hypocritical of you to accuse others of suppressing discussion and then happily remove opinions that differ from your own from your user talk page. Also, comments like "NewYorkBrad steps into the arena" (among various other comments I've seen from you throughout this issue) promote a battleground mentality, and are not helpful. If you want to continue discussing this subject, I suggest you do so in a collaborative manner with others, rather then taking a "me against them" attitude. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can see that removing banal comments from Bugs, Treasury tag and Good Day (I don't think there any others) are a huge loss. The battleground is not of my making, we have all seen the net results of attemting to discuss this in "in a collaborative manner with others". A supression by Admins loyal to Rlevse. These are the people who have currently split the project, not me. I see nothing wrong in assembling diffs and timeline to help the 1,000s who must be as confused as I as to what exactly is going on here. Furthermore, are you claiming the diffs are fabricated or erronious in some way? I assure you, they are all freely avaialble. Indeed, if you can find the "official arbcom retirement announcement" I would be very grateful or indeed any other comments from them explaining the situation so I can set the record staright. Should someone wish to ban again me for making a timeline of events to clarify this extraordinary situation for the benefit of all, then we wil have to cross that bridge when we come to it. However, thank you for your advice, but I won't be taking it.  Giacomo  09:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• No comment on the substance of the conversation with Kingpin, but ArbCom has indicated that they will likely not be posting an "official arbcom retirement announcement". The closest you'll get to that is probably this. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Sarcastic comments like that are exactly what seems to cause you so much grief. People are going to be much more willing to discuss things with you, and take you seriously, if you do the same for them. The admins who were stopping you from discussing did so because they did not think your comments were a benefit. Just as you removed comments because you did not think they were a benefit. So people have opposing views on what is constructive or not. But I hope we can all agree that this means we all need to listen to each other, and that way resolve our differences, rather than ignore each other, and end up holding grudges. If an attempt at collaboration has failed once, that's not a justification to then go down the warpath. Now I don't want to come across as condescending, but I don't think it matters who "split the project" on this, in fact I'm sure it was a team effort (one of the best things we seem to be able to do collaboratively huh? ;D) - what matters is not who start it, it's who's going to end it. You can't keep going on about "they did this, so I'm going to do this back to them", that's precisely what battleground is discouraging. I don't have a problem with you getting constructing a timeline per se. In fact, I congratulate you for doing so, it's seems sensible in this case where the events are so hard to track. What I have a problem with is your commentary on said events. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Kingpin you and all the other Admins like you (I use the plural you) are going to have to learn to live with your "problem." It's a little late to come here saying "we all need to listen to each other", you had your chance, but decided to supress the editorship's views and block me. You wanted to rule by fear and intimidation. Don't worry, in no way is it possible for you to sound "condescending" when addressing me. Now, what is above is perfectly legitimate and as far as I'm aware the first serious effort on the project to attempt any clarity and sense of the subject. I shall continue with it.  Giacomo  11:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In no way is it too late to all settle down, and discuss this - the only thing which will make it "too late" is the attitude that it is, and I see no reason for that approach, and nothing which is preventing you from simply dropping it. You weren't blocked to suppress discussion, you were blocked because edit warring isn't promoting discussion. Please do not include me in the group of editors you have in your head that want to "rule by fear and intimidation" - I don't, and without evidence those kinds of claims are unjustifiably inflammatory. By all means, please continue with your work above clarifying and making sense of this. However, if you continue to hold grudges, and refuse to work with others, and don't give them the chance to work with you simply because you hold a grudge (regardless of if they were wrong in the first place), you'll eventually find you have a grudge against everyone. You need to concentrate more on how other editors are behaving in the present, and less on the past. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Kingpin you and your friends had ample opportunity to discuss this in a collegiate fashion. You declined, closed all debate and intimidated. Sadly, for you, I am not so easily intimidated and will be continuing until the matter is concluded to my complete satisfaction. I am doing here that which Arbs and Admins have declined to do - holding an enquiry into the matter. I shall be moving it to a user page later today, so that others can have the debate they wish for on the talk page - that will even inlcude you - I have no wish to exclude or supress anyone. As for the the group of "editors you have in your head that want to "rule by fear and intimidation" well so long as they are only in my head, I shall have no problems here - will I?  Giacomo  12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe any of the users who reverted your closure or who you believe have attempted to intimidate you are my "friends". Also I'm not "sad" that you weren't intimidated by other users. If you truly had no wish to exclude anyone, I expect you would show some more remorse for having blanket-removed comments by other users, especially considering you nearly always only have an issue with those users who disagree with you. It's shame to see someone like yourself - apparently very focused on ridding Wikipedia of double standards between admins/non-admins/arbs etc, holding double standards yourself. As to unfounded accusations against me, keep them in your head then, and off Wikipedia (that include in discussions on this talk page, such as this one). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• King Pin this is not really going anywhere is it? Rlevse's Admin friends had the chance for a debate on their noticboard, they did not want it, they hunted like a pack and used every trick at their disposal to halt it. This page is my noticeboard and I do want a debate. I was made to feel very unwelcome on their noticeboard so it's no good them complaining now, that I am holding it in my userspace. I shall be moving all of this shortly. Now, unless you have anything constructive to add, I suggest you may your complaints elsewhere. I expect, they will have you a joyous hearing on ANI. Good afternoon.  Giacomo  13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

Giano, it is no secret that I've been friendly with Rlevse for a long time (in spite of the fact that I told him to "go to hell" about a month ago). What seems to have happened is that Rlevse has been quite energetic about pointing out the perceived faults in others during his ArbCom tenure, and then he gets caught in this embarrassing situation where he's the one who's done wrong. Naturally, the community reacts strongly to the appearance of hypocrisy. My feeling is that he needs to come back and face the criticism, but to get that to happen, the criticism needs to focus on the facts, and not be overstated. If he's cited sources, it's not plagiarism, it's excessive paraphrasing. That's a mistake that those unskillful in academic or encyclopedia writing can easily make when they are trying hard, or too hard, to remain faithful to the sources. How best to deal with it? Shouldn't he be taught what the mistake was, and asked to go through his contributions and fix any other instances? That would seem like the appropriate penance. Him vanishing seems to cover the trail so that it's hard for other editors to check his work. Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I find "it's not plagiarism, it's excessive paraphrasing" to be a strange analysis, explicable only if you don't understand the meaning of either "plagiarism" or "paraphrasing". In any event, what brought this to a head was copy-and-pasting text from a copyrighted web site, which is neither plagiarism nor paraphrasing, it's a copyright violation. Where we do agree though is that the proper thing for Rlevse to do now is to return and help clear up the mess. Malleus Fatuorum 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did the copy and pasting take place? --Conti|✉ 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the last thing I can stand is hypocrisy and I may have said as much occasionally, I want to point out that I am not aware that Rlevse "has been quite energetic about pointing out the perceived faults in others during his ArbCom tenure". I am not saying it's not true. It's just something that I didn't notice and even now I don't immediately know what you mean. Maybe I simply missed it because I was never focused on him.

I basically agree with you about everything else, except that IMO it's too late now for Rlevse to return. He seems to have a history of "retiring" and running away in the face of problems that suggests that he either just prefers the easy way out or that Wikipedia is too stressful for him. Either way he shouldn't return at all after RTV, and especially not so shortly after making use of it. This would be serious abuse of RTV, which is not a good thing at all. Hans Adler 13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. However, we now have the equally serious matter of supression. This was carried out by his Admin friends and to my mind has brought the project into as much disrepute as the allegation concerning his writing. I intend to concentrate on both equally. Don't worry if you suddenly dissapear from here, as Im going to start a designated user page for the subject.  Giacomo  14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK here's my 'timeline of events': 1. Rlevse makes a mistake by plagiarising. 2. Rlevse gets called on his mistake by the community. 3. Rlevse gets embarrassed and upset and decides to retire. 4. Rlevse has second thoughts about leaving for good and decides he wants to come back eventually, so he requests that I temporarily unblock his page so that he may put up a indef wikibreak notice (NOTHING ELSE) I grant him the request 5. Giano starts making a big issue over nothing at WP:ANI further upsetting Rlevse and causing him to change his mind about coming back and this time leave for good, so he invokes RTV. 6. Giano starts making a big issue over nothing again. That's it. That's all there is to this "affair". The big mystery to me is why you seem to think this is worth discussing over and over. -- œ^™ 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps everybody should step away from the horse? But I understand that's hard for some of these gravestompers to do. Grsz¹¹ 18:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I, for one, can see a few unresolved issues of some moment in the above discussion. I encourage editors to sort them out, rather than suppress the inquiry/discussion mid-stream.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. As per my comments above (q.v.), I see little value to the current discussion at all. The discussion of value is occurring elsewhere, and without an undue focus on an individual departed editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Where is that other discussion taking place? Also, as the above discussion has just revealed, there appears to be a difference of some significance if one vanishes as he did, vs. vanishing after the community has had an opportunity to consider whether action should be taken that would take the editor out of the good standing category. I had not understood that before. And view it as an important factor to be considered. I note that NYB characterizes that as a focus on motives. It need not be. The effect of allowing vanishing at this point is of some moment, certainly, whatever the editor's motive may be.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Import

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are you implying that Rlevse's retirement was actually a controlled demolition?--KorruskiTalk 16:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Desist at once! There is fnord no conspiracy. Please report to your neighborhood reeducation fnord center for processing. — Coren (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Was it you who "helped him draft" the parting statement Coren?  Giacomo  16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Help! I've wandered in to HHGTTG and can't get out! However, I've fairly certain this is not...ooh look, a bunny. Shell babelfish 16:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Very well, seeing as Arbs want to take part here: I will rephrase for Shell Kinney? Which member of the Arbcom assisted in the drafting of Rlevse's parting statement and by implication endorsed its views? I really would stress that denying any Arbcom member did may be reprehensible.  Giacomo  17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I may be missing something here. If "helped him draft" is a quote, from whom is it a quote, and when or where? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I'm asking the questions? I know the answers, but I'm asking them never the less. By the way, you are doing very well, having 2 arbs here, so long as they are prepared to answer questions it should be interesting for you.  Giacomo  17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Giano, your paranoid delusions are taking a turn for the worse. I'm hoping this blows over soon before you cover yourself with ridicule, because your contributions (especially in architecture) are valuable; but you are quickly expending what little credibility you have left by insisting that the windmills are giants. The only place there is a conspiracy is in your own overactive imagination. You're being confused by a consuming grudge over an imagined slight to the point of twisting everything that happens into self-fulfilling confirmation of your delusion. And, to prove the point, you'll now deem me part of that conspiracy (if I wasn't already) for pointing this out. Take a break away from Wikipedia for a few months and do something else to clear your head, or go and discuss things with a health professional. "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed." — Coren (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Is that a yes or a no? Just be clear.  Giacomo  17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC) It's mu. I have done no such thing, but I'm not going to say "no" because you're begging the question that any such help existed at all. — Coren (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid clever answers are not required. We'll take that as "No, it was not me who helped draft RLevse's parting statement." Thank you that was most helpful. Would you like to name the Arb in question?  Giacomo  18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC) No, you may not take that to mean exactly what I specifically said it does not. The simple answer, since you don't want to deal with clever ones, is "Your question is incorrect because it is based on a false premise." — Coren (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that you know it to be a false premise or you beleive it to be a false premise? I would try and answer more simply this time; it's easier for you.  Giacomo  18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC) "[...] for he was spurred on by the conviction that the world needed his immediate presence: so many were the grievances he intended to rectify, the wrongs he resolved to set right, the harms he meant to redress, the abuses he would reform and the debts he would discharge." — Coren (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you Sancho, you will find the ground very hard when you fall off that donkey.  Giacomo  18:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) On the substantive matter, I have been reminded that, for some egregious interpretation of "help draft", an answer might be "Roger". Rlevse did thank him for copyedit help. I wouldn't want you to think that I've been trying to mislead you; but I'm pretty sure that copyedits isn't what you have in mind when you make your accusations. Which reminds me, who are you accusing of doing what, again? — Coren (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I'm so pleased that you have started to think perhaps it will happen again.  Giacomo  19:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Even if suspected conspiracies were true, how would one ever un-cover them? GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, but that's not the point of all this, is it? One guy making a mistake in an area that apparently (if you read the various discussions) confuses the vast majority of the community has very little to do with Giano's goals here. He knows that if you repeat an accusation enough times in enough places, the random editor who couldn't care less about the politics of the situation is bound to see it once or twice - and that's all you need. Regardless of a lack of evidence or even common sense, if you play the game well, you can influence a large portion of the community because they won't look at the details, they'll just remember the accusations were made and discussed at length. It does an excellent job of distracting from any of the real issues here, such as: what exactly are the pack of editors at FAC really doing during these article reviews if something so apparently obvious is completely missed, how many of our "featured" articles are in similar shape and what do we do, as a community, to change this? Skewering someone, especially in a perceived position of authority, neatly avoids having to take a hard look at the processes that got us here with the added bonus of putting another notch in the "drove this person off the wiki" belt. In the end though, it matters little - despite all the scheming, Giano is still just the king of multi-player notepad. Shell babelfish 19:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Oh Shell, you do sound unhappy and bitter. So it's skewering is it? Did he jump on it or was he pushed, or is there just possibly a little bit more than you in your ivory tower, that is arbcom are prepeared to see. I seen some ignorant and incomptetent posts from arbs before, but that is the most ignorant ever. God help any victim in a case you ever hear. You are a disgrace to the Arbcom.  Giacomo  21:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Well thank you, I certainly couldn't have asked for a better example of my point. I am a bit disappointed that ignorant was the best you could do though. Shell babelfish 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) {{User:Seb az86556/R}} This user is a Rlevseist believes in Rlevsenity Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ What I'm getting at though is this: There's no mechanical way to proove if arbitrators/administrators or any editors have been apart of any cover-up. There's no way to make Rlvese return to Wikipedia. As a result, what's the point of persuing it (other then mere curiousity). GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Sheesh. I'm not sure why Giano is so interested in who wrote the statement, but I would expect better behavior from arbcom members than questioning Giano's sanity (Coren) and blaming everyone except the one who was wrong (Shell Kinney). I think it might be time for arb members to stop circling the wagons. If there's nothing to this, then let Giano rant all he wants. There's no need to belittle either him or the problem. Tex (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by blaming everyone else. The concerns about copyright have been handled as they would for any other editor; there's a WP:CCI open and contributions are being systematically reviewed. The discussions about how to educate the general community and whether or not a more thorough review of Featured Articles needs to happen have stalled in a number of places, often due to calls for someone's head - seems a bit silly to ignore the forest for the trees if you ask me. If you think attacking another editor at every turn in various places and claiming (but not providing) super secret evidence of a conspiracy is appropriate, then I suppose we disagree there. Shell babelfish 18:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Shell, I suspect Tex interpreted "what exactly are the pack of editors at FAC really doing during these article reviews if something so apparently obvious is completely missed" as blaming the FA reviewers/delegates, or at least questioning their competency. If that's not actually what you meant, you may wish to clarify to prevent further misunderstandings. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have no reason to think it's what Shell had in mind, but several people involved with FAC were entirely happy - exultant, in fact - to refer to those involved with DYK as "a pretty incompetent bunch" well before the issues with the Grace Sherwood article were discovered. They made comments like that repeatedly, seemingly hoping to have the maximum impact and maximum disruption - and they succeeded. When there is a suspicion that the exactly equivalent implication has been suggested in the other direction, suddenly there is a need for clarifications? Giano is right, it is indeed interesting for me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Without downplaying who did what actual copying here, you do realize there was a co-author, several reviewers and the entire group at the FAC review who looked over the article and either missed or misunderstood the copying issue? That's a pretty large group of editors who are working on what are supposed to be Wikipedia's best articles - it's enough to seriously concern me that we may have a much bigger problem than anyone's willing to admit. What I haven't been terribly impressed with is the unwillingness to discuss those issues and the resorts to attacking other editors as a means of distraction. Shell babelfish 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I would agree with that. Editor error can occur anytime, deliberate or not. Anyone can edit, after all. This case has pointed up a more serious failure of process in that the problems were not detected, and that's the thing to get excited about.  pablo 20:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC) SG response Here. 14:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Right to vanish wording WP:RTV says in the first line: Right to vanish means the right of any user, upon leaving Wikipedia. let me point out some words there Right to vanish means the right of any user, upon leaving Wikipedia so its not if a person, its the user / account. it does not depend on if its role account or not 89.243.111.134 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)