Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton

message: 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a complete rewrite) may withdraw his nomination before the lag time runs out, close the debate and conclude "Nomination withdrawn", and that SamuraiClinton would have been justified in doing so?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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05#Template:Vfd delete. —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#Closure exceptions, Wikipedia talk:Guide to Votes for deletion#Vote to merge, Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Closing the debates where the decision is to keep, Wikipedia:Cleaning department#Trash removal, Wikipedia: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. —Korath (Talk) 14:33, Apr 14, 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)
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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  My comment retribution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An Experiment 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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. — 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)
thread_title:  My response to all this! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Glimmer of hope 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT development 

message: 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)
thread_title: Okay, now what?

message: 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)
thread_title: Move to close