Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PumpkinSky

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (59/32/7); ended 23:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Ryan Vesey 23:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone. I'm here to ask that you consider for adminship one of our most experienced and hard-working editors: User:PumpkinSky. Under his previous username, User:Rlevse, this editor served English Wikipedia as an administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator, contributing over 90,000 edits. Rlevse created over 100 new articles, performed over 5000 administrative actions, and helped over a dozen articles reach featured status, on topics ranging from U.S. presidents to Scouting to famous animators.

Despite these accomplishments, one can't give an honest history of this editor's contributions without acknowledging the mistakes of 2010. Put simply, at that time PumpkinSky did not understand copyright very well, and he inadvertently put the project at risk by including content in some articles that was improperly attributed, too closely paraphrased, or otherwise ran afoul of our copyright policies. In response to these discoveries, he resigned his tools and left the project two years ago this month.

Fortunately, he is back: hard-working as ever, but with a much better appreciation of the pitfalls of copyright issues. There were some hiccups in February, where a couple of inadequately attributed sections were found in his contributions, but if you have any concerns about PumpkinSky's current understanding of copyright, I encourage you to study both a sample of his contributions since February as well as the February 2012 PumpkinSky CCI, which should give you a full picture of this editor's contributions. Needless to say, he is quite keen to avoid a repeat of any copyright problems, and has been quick to ask other editors whenever he's concerned an addition of his needs another pair of eyes to ensure its copyright compliance.

(He has also been helping out on other editors' CCIs, both to gain more experience in the copyright realm, and to "pay forward" the work of the editors who were kind enough to clear his own CCIs.)

PumpkinSky is an experienced, helpful and hard-working editor who cares deeply about this project. I know he can do good admin work, because I've seen him do it. I hope you will agree that the time is right to allow him to resume his work as an administrator. 28bytes (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second the nomination of PumpkinSky, as a content contributor, as an admin, and as an editor of Wikipedia.

I do not think anyone could question the competence of PumpkinSky, when he edited as Rlevse, in any of the functions he held. The worst I heard of him was that some people said he was too arrogant. I daresay his experience the last few months has taken care of that.

The circumstances of his departure, and return should not give concern, nor should he have to wait some arbitrary period before seeking adminship. Yes, he panicked over an accusation of close paraphrasing, and retired and took RTV. However, a thorough investigation of his contributions found no more problems than, say, any content contributor might see if someone very pickily audited their contributions. The circumstances of his departure do not show that he would be any less effective as admin than he was before.

On his return, there was much hot air, and an admin blocked him for "abusing multiple accounts". However, the accusation was not socking, but simply a dubious interpretation of WP:RTV. RTV isn't a blockable offense, it just says we retag all prior contributions so we can keep straight of who it is made what contributions. There was never any evidence of socking, and there was considerable good reason to believe the admin had acted mistakenly. It's unsurprising, in retrospect, that there was no drama at his unblocking, and he was welcomed back by most. I do not see how any of this makes him a less effective admin, or less worthy of the community trust he has often enjoyed.

Since his return, he has worked quietly and diligently, bringing an article he began through to FA and TFA. He recently was a major part of bringing Franz Kafka to FA, which won second place in the Core Competition. He is a solid editor, and has proven worthy of regaining the adminship he voluntarily gave up. I have been here long enough to know that this will not be accomplished without drama (I would be happy to be proved wrong though), but he will be as good an admin as he always was. Nothing which happened changes that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored and humbled to be allowed to be a part of this nomination. I have some points that I'd like to make here, but before I do I want to speak from my heart. I first ran into PS as Rlevse years ago. Over the years we have disagreed on many things, but have always found a way forward. At one point I got disgusted and walked away from the project; after a few months of being away from Wikipedia - Rlevse sent me an email. He asked me to come back and contribute to the project. Eventually I did come back, and I often have mixed feelings about the project - but I do know that there are good people such as PumpkinSky who encourages people to contribute to our efforts. I've watched as he reached across the divide to find a common ground with people he had differences with, and admire his selfless devotion to the betterment of the project. This is a man that stood at the top - an arb, CU, admin., and suffered a downfall of proportions that crumbled his soul to the point where he asked to be vanished. He proved his worth to get to the top - and then took the weight of Grace Sherwood on his shoulders and bowed out. He learned what it was to suffer the indignation that Wikipedia can impose on a person - and yet had the strength and courage to return, start from scratch, and prove his worth again. I'm drifting into a personal appeal here, and I apologize for that - let me point to the simple facts I'd like to make. PS knows his way around the project, and he uses his abilities to encourage others. Not just "registered" users .. such as his helping long established editors at DYK:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Lekythion
• User_talk:PumpkinSky#DYK_help.3F
• User_talk:PumpkinSky#Brow_Monument_and_Brow_Monument_Trail

I also ran into a couple IP editors who had done work creating articles at WP:AFC and the articles deserved notice. While I was able to move the articles to mainspace .. I was not familiar with the DYK process - and when I mentioned it to PS - he took the bull by the horns and helped get the articles to front-page status, and give credit to anon. IP editors.

• IP editors: Template:Did you know nominations/Ebru Umar, Metro (Dutch newspaper). User:66.168.247.159 got a DYK for Ebru Umar and User:207.157.121.92 for Metro (Dutch newspaper).

These types of things speak to the effort in editor retention, and the encouragement of all editors to contribute to our project ; so aside from the great work in many of the FA areas, I feel we have a great need of admins. who work in this area of encouraging new editors. — Ched :  ?  22:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to nominate PumpkinSky for your consideration. If you’ve been around awhile, it’s likely that you better knew him as Rlevse, one of the most prolific all-around users. He was an administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, checkuser, oversighter, and above all, a great editor. However, faced with an allegation of close paraphrasing and copyright violation, he made a poor choice by invoking the right to vanish instead of working to allay others’ concerns. I don’t doubt that this was a bad choice, but both ensuing CCIs (contributor copyright investigation) looked at every edit of his and didn’t find much of anything. I know that a few sentences of too-close paraphrasing were found, but this does not mean that PumpkinSky does not understand copyright - in fact, I believe that having all of his contributions examined so closely means that he understands close paraphrasing (incidentally found in only a few edits) and copyright violation better. I also want to point out that the same person is still behind the screen, so his impeccable ability to determine consensus still exists. His ability to handle contentious discussions with ease means that both lazy admins like me won’t have to do it (just kidding...mostly!) and the wiki will run more efficiently.

PumpkinSky has been in every position possible on the wiki, and this will make him a better administrator. Not only has he been one of the most stalwart, trusted members of the community, but he has also been on the business end of an indef block. I believe that he will be better able to deal with the concerns of blocked users and liaise with highly-trusted ones because he has experienced both sides of the coin. I want to address, briefly, the concerns of sockpuppetry. When it was revealed that PumpkinSky and Rlevse were the same person, cries of “sock!” abounded - however, I would like to point out that the two accounts never edited concurrently and he followed the policy of Clean Starts to the letter. The current link between the accounts should have been the only consequence of that failed clean start, not a sullied block log for socking.

Finally, I want to point out PumpkinSky’s amazing content work and collaboration, because he will be an excellent content admin. His greatest accomplishment so far - in my humble opinion - is Yogo sapphire, primarily written by him and Montanabw. The amazing part is that a whole clutch of Wikipedians were involved in this achievement, and I watched from afar as many of our colleagues flocked to the article. It was wonderful to watch. Not simply content to write featured articles, PumpkinSky also has one featured list and two good articles, along with 49 DYK credits. I don’t even have to bring up his 15 FAs under his previous name to prove that he’s an excellent content contributor. He also is incredibly generous with his expertise; PumpkinSky has helped me in multiple FACs, as he has with many other editors, and the content we write is so much better for it. Like my co-nominator said in his recent RfB, “I wish everybody I unblocked went off and wrote an FA”. I wish the same, and I hope you will be thoughtful and give him the consideration he deserves. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am truly humbled that four people of this caliber are willing to co-nom me and think I am again worthy of being considered for adminship by the wiki community. While the thought of posting to WP:BN did cross my mind, I wanted the entire community to have a voice in this request; I therefore accept this nomination.PumpkinSky talk 22:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I have extensive experience in many admin areas such as AN, ANI, SPI, UAA, AIV, CHU (as a former crat), 3RR, handling DYK queues, page protections, and AFD. I was also formerly on arbcom. Over on Commons I used to do a lot of dupe image deletions; since becoming active there again on July 10th I have mostly worked on closing IFDs, speedy deletions, and protecting images. I also became active again with OTRS on Sep 14th and process requests there. As an EN Wiki admin I would like to now work in areas such as deleting copies of images that have been moved to or need to be moved to Commons as there is a huge backlog in this area, once again helping with admin tasks at DYK as they could use some help there, and looking at/restoring deleted material as there are many OTRS requests that require that.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think Yogo sapphire represents my best work. I started this article in late October 2011. It became an FA in June 2012 and was on the main page as TFA 10 days later. I feel this article represents my best work ever on wiki because in my view, it is a prime example of what wiki is at its best – multiple users coming together in a collegial and cooperative manner to make an article as best as it can be. I never, in no way, could have taken this to FA alone (granted, that’s true of any FA), but it was more so in this case. I had so many people help I can’t begin to name them all. It was a true team effort. At the risk of offending some by leaving them out, there was Montanabw who did much local area research, Nikkimaria who did source checks and a very thorough copyvio check, Wehwalt with superb copyediting, Casliber and Andy Dingley with tips on how to take photos of those tiny gems, Vsmith who is the scientific/geology expert on this, and Jesse V. with a great GA review. I could go on and on. This why I think this article represents my best contribution to wiki. Similarly, I was really surprised and pleased as I recently worked with Gerda Arendt on Franz Kafka which won 2nd place in the CORE contest this year and is now a FA. Kafka was a very hard article to get to FA level.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes. My most difficult time in this regard was the Halloween 2010 Grace Sherwood issue. It was so stressful I had to leave for what I was sure at the time would be forever. I felt rather alone and isolated. The time in Jan-Feb was stressful too. I have dealt with all this by letting it all go. Real life and wiki life are much calmer now. I harbor no grudges nor ill will to anyone; not even the people I was in conflict with. I simply let it all go.

Additional question to self from PumpkinSky

4. Where did you go wrong with copyright and attribution, and how can you assure the community those issues are in the past?

A: In not keeping up with current copyvio standards. I honestly thought I was in compliance as I erroneously thought if you use something and put a footnote right after it, that it was okay. Some members of the community may find this surprising, but it is the truth. Thereafter I have endeavored to learn the new, correct standards and to keep in compliance. When writing an article, I now constantly say to myself “Is this a copyvio. Is this a copyvio.” I have asked people to review any new article I write or add significantly to so that we all can be assured the writing is in compliance. It’s been some time since someone has pointed out a problem in my writing on this. This summer I began helping with Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 and it was closed on Sep 1st Since others helped me with CCI issues, I tried to reciprocate and contribute in this area as well. I am now aware of WP:UPDATE.

Additional question from Amadscientist

5. Paraphrasing is an issue many editors still do not understand. Could you tell us what you feel the standard is with paraphrasing and how it relates to copyright?

A: Paraphrasing is retelling the source in different words. If it stays too close to the source, ie "too close paraphrasing", it is a copyviolation. You need to understand what was said and then say it in your own words and sentence structure needs to be sufficiently different. You can't just be saying the same thing with a few different words.

Additional question from Skinwalker

6. Did you leak the arbcom mailing list?

A: Lord no. That was not me. The leak included arbcom discussions that occurred after I left arbcom and I had no access to. PumpkinSky talk 00:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Rschen7754

7. Would you mind briefly responding to the concerns regarding your interactions with the FAC delegates earlier this year?

A: Sure, no problem. I feel the questions/concerns I brought up then are legitmate. Unfortunately, I got caught up in the discussions at that time and admittedly went too far. I regret that and apologize to those involved and the community.

Additional question from Steven Zhang

8. I apologise in advance if this seems to be a duplicate of another question. Prior to your vanishing in late 2010, you held a large number of roles on English Wikipedia. Some may feel that the lapse in judgment was severe enough to create trust issues deeming you unfit, in their minds, of being an administrator. How would you respond to these potential concerns?

A: Life is journey of perpetual learning experiences as none of us are perfect. I also learned firsthand a major lesson in that old adage, one variation of which goes something like "you don't truly understand a person (or situation) until you've been in their moccasins." I now understand what it's like to be on the other side of the fence. Hopefully, that understanding will enable me to be a better admin on wiki.

Additional question from Skinwalker

9. When you were a bureaucrat, did you close RFAs in which a family member of yours !voted?

A:

Additional question from Stanistani

10. Please define plagiarism insofar as it relates to editing Wikipedia.

A:

Additional question from Amalthea

11. The nominations state that you have not abused multiple accounts. I would like to hear your opinion on that, in particular regarding anon edits through open proxies (For some context, see this old question from your talk page).

A:

Additional questions from Alanscottwalker

12. During this February 2012 (hatted) disussion, your account was accused and some evidence was adduced of deception concerning operating an account while banned, pursuing grudges, and vague answers/failure to communicate.

a) Did your edits seek to deceive?

A:

b) By your edits, were grudges pursued?

A:

c) Were your responses evasive?

A:

d) How would you handle such issues as an administrator?

A:

Additional question from Fut.Perf.

13. Was BarkingMoon (talk · contribs) you? If yes, have you previously admitted this publicly? If it was not you, why should we believe you it wasn't?

A:

Additional questions from Sven Manguard

It is beyond arguing that you violated WP:RTV, and it can be easily argued that you explicitly violated several of the points in the What vanishing is not section.

14: How do you justify making a flagrant ethical violation violating RTV in the way that you did in order to return to the project?

A:

15: Aside from you, I know of at least three other users that knowingly and purposefully abused RTV. In all four cases, the user received no punishment for their violations. Considering that four people account for, as best as I can tell, between 20-25% of the people that have used RTV, is the policy worth keeping? Should it depreciated? Should it be rewritten? Do the benefits of protecting innocent people caught in intractable situations outweigh the harm of the policy serving as a vehicle for policy-savvy users to bury their past?

A: Only 20-25%? I did many RTVs when I was a crat and in 90% of them the user came back within 48 hours and no one ever complained. Should RTV be deprecated?-No. Because there are quite legit reasons for it, so yes it should be kept. Should it be rewritten?--most definitely, but carefully so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinSky (talk • contribs)

• Links for PumpkinSky: PumpkinSky (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for PumpkinSky can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

• I have a feeling we're not being told the whole story in the party introduction above. Some clarification as to when the former identity of PumpkinSky was made public would help per [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see someone now turned up a chronicle about the affair, but it only covers events up to November 2010. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And doesn't, in fact, mention any actions of Rlevse at all! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, I (and most of the community) found out that PumpkinSky was Rlevse on February 1, 2012. I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have about the leaving or the return; I saw all of it unfold in realtime. I have no intention of whitewashing anything: obviously both the leaving ("RTV") and the return were handled badly. Different people will of course have different opinions on whether it's a forgivable sin or a capital one; I'm sure it's obvious where I stand on that question. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a withdrawal at WP:BN a few minutes ago. PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit stats on the talk page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. As nom. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I rarely have supported RFAs in recent times because of the Archtransit effect, but I've known PS for many years, was happy to see this request pop up on my watchlist and am happy to support him. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A wonderful attitude and dedication to the project overcomes the mistakes, especially since it's clear he won't let the same type of mistakes happen again. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Moving to oppose. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. As conom.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Will not cause chaos, no issues. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes. Legoktm (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Happy to support given my previous and my recent interactions with him. Bencherlite^Talk 22:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongly. He's been a model editor since returning. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. And if I haven't said so before - thank you for helping and walking me through the Noel F. Parrish GA. — Ched :  ?  22:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course. He has the ability and knowhow we are crying out for. So he stumbled at one time -- John 8:7. Moriori (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Have reconsidered after seeing opposes. Moriori (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support, unequivocally. bd2412 T 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Theopolisme 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Have seen him in many places, helping out, and could do more with the bit.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Mistakes in 2010 as a reason to oppose? Give me a break. Support to balance out some incredible bad faith and unfounded accusations below. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - I'm well aware of the issues behind this and the work that was done to take care of them. However, PSky has been working harder to avoid close paraphrasing and, in my opinion, is doing a peachy job at it. He's already presented several articles to FA since his return, the most recent of which is Kafka. He's clearly not afraid of taking on big tasks where the risk of sniping may be larger than the reward. We need Admins who are willing to step up for what they see is right, and PSky fits the bill. That he's generally polite and not bitey is an added bonus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. I think that a serious err of judgment was made some time ago, but since then PumpkinSky's hard work plus his expertise in his former roles are sufficient enough for me to support. One thing that I consider that will come up in the opposing section is trust issues. As someone who's erred severely in the past myself, all I can add is that when one is shunned or banned by the community, it's very unpleasant, and most would do everything they can to prevent that from happening again. You only stick a fork in an electric socket once. Best of luck. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Appears to have shown great improvement. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, one of the finest editors I've seen on the project; truly a fine individual that I think will make an excellent admin. Yes, there was a bit of a stumble with the copyright issue, but what a magnificient comeback! Great content contributor and collaborator. P'sky has my absolute trust. Dreadstar ☥ 00:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support – Any run-throughs I've had with PS have been favorable, and he is clearly trustworthy of the tools. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support as nominator. 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I don't think the copyright issue is a problem anymore, since there's so much scrutiny. The issues with the FAC director/delegates were bad, but after such a dramatic incident in October 2010, I suppose I might blame the FAC people too, even though they had no fault in this. In short, we're all human. He can't wear the scarlet letter forever, and I have no concerns with him having the flag. Also has tried to stay out of controversy as well. --Rschen7754 01:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support; I'm sufficiently confident that he'll make a good administrator that I won't torture him by asking the AE question I've been waiting to spring on someone. He was fine then, he'll be fine now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Unlikely to repeat past mistakes. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You all won't count my IP vote, but PumpkinSky is a very friendly and helpful editor and you should be happy to have him around. I trust his judgment. As for the opposes--at least PumpkinSky won't have to answer a half a dozen questions by jc37, since they already oppose. Thanks PS. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I have to admit, you made me smile with that statement. I have no doubt that Rlevse/PumpkinSky could answer my typical questions in their sleep, and would likely only have asked for information concerning IAR (question 6 on that page) and why he was requesting adminship (9 on that page). But the many other concerns unfortunately preclude even getting that far. - jc37 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We aim to please. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indented because, as 66.168.247.159 seems to know, IPs can't directly vote, but 66.168.247.159's comments are quite welcome. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22. Support - Even though I might be labeled as a "new" user, I still find PumpkinSky's contributions very helpful indeed. I think that wikipedia will benefit for sure if PumpkinSky is given sysop rights. Hair^Talk 01:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. I'm Go Phightins! and I approve this message Sorry, too much presidential debate watching. With nominations from users of that caliber, how could I oppose?
24. Support. I've watched and dealt with this editor since I first began editing on Wikipedia. I trusted him them and I trust him now. He had some issues with copyright, but these were clearly mistakes rather than deliberate acts to further himself at the risk of the encyclopedia. Sadly, some of those who went after him on his mistakes made mistakes even more serious than his. People make mistakes. The issue is not that they do but, what they are, why they made the mistakes, and what they do about it. PS has come back, if anything, a better editor than before.(olive (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
25. Support as a great editor. He will certainly understand the tools. TBrandley 03:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. MZMcBride (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. I've had disagreements with PumpkinSky since his return to the project but have seen nothing to undermine my confidence in his ability to again be a good administrator. And he worked hard for the project then and has worked hard for it since his return. So, I think it's time we returned his mop. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Rlevse "made my day" in 2010, for three years he singled out a user every day for merits. As you all know, we have collaborated on articles (see my user for the list), most memorable Great Dismal Swamp maroons, found in his sandbox when he was blocked, completed with the help of many, featured pictured as DYK and promoted to GA (while he still was blocked), in Wikipedia spirit of collaboration. I trusted him to return, I trust him now to use tools to help and to protect what is left of the project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. I don't believe you would get up to any mischief but even if you did because you will be watched by the hawks it would be spotted straight away - so the level of risk is zero. I read the whole Rlevse -> PS return drama in real time. If you can put up with that, continue to contribute and come back here for an RfA then you definitely have what it takes. Good luck QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 08:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. I'm fine with this - what he may have done wrong as an editor is not necessarily an indication of his suitability to be an admin. Deb (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
33. PumpkinSky made a huge error, there's no doubt about that; however, as far as I am aware he has owned up to his mistakes and attempted to rectify them. I am confident that PumpkinSky will be fine if he is re-granted adminship: I trusted PumpkinSky during his original time as an administrator and his use of the tools was stellar. Based on my past and current experience of him I do not believe he would be abusive; if that's not enough, it's clear that PumpkinSky will be heavily monitored - as QuiteUnusual says above - giving him little to no room for any "wrongdoing"; while I doubt he will need any sort of "babysitting" (sorry! Lack of a better term there.), I have confidence in all the nominators and believe that they will be willing to help him out if he needs any assistance. PumpkinSky has always been friendly to me, and I've never personally observed him to act any other way with other people. In all, PumpkinSky is a skilled editor and was a great admin; his errors were a blow to his reputation but he has taken great strides to restore himself and move on; I don't think there will be any major problems if PumpkinSky is given the tools back, and I wouldn't be surprised if he'd be a better admin than before. Acalamari 10:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. I'm effectively inactive right now, but I have to come out of that state briefly to offer my support for one of our most honourable contributors - PumpkinSky is without doubt easily fit to be an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. I'm surprised your not already! A great editor and worthy of admin status. -- Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. I wondered what happened to Rlevse. Recent contributions look fine. Previous admin & bureaucrat activity has generally been good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Per Steven Zhang, worked to improve issues to gain the trust of both him, as well as Dreadstar and community.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support, no idea why he'd want the mop and bucket though, but if it helps make wikipedia a better place..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
39. Strongly Support per nomination. Kanatonian (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support (Switched from oppose.) Thought about it some more. I remember rlevse as a generally good admin and bureaucrat and perhaps it makes more sense to focus on that. Clearly, despite the past issues, he is dedicated enough to come back and make positive contributions to the project, and that's something worth respecting. Hopefully older does equal wiser. --regentspark (comment) 13:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
41. I have been saddened to see so much fragmentation in the community lately. It's never easy for anyone, and it's actually quite hard for some, to rewrite stuff with different words while keeping exactly the same sense ... and the community as a whole dances around this issue. This would be a great time for education and healing and a lot of other psychobabblish words ... but RFA doesn't work that way. As I've said before, if RFA voters had a history of opposing when they had questions and then switching to support three months later after the candidates had a chance to prove themselves, I'd be willing to oppose more often ... but RFA doesn't work that way, and all I can do here is reject or accept candidates, warts and all. This is an exceptional candidate, and very much a part of the fabric of our community. (I like that metaphor; if you start tearing out threads that don't look quite right, you'll quickly destroy a fabric. That's the argument in favor of tolerance for any editor who's a part of the fabric, and this one definitely is.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support: The candidate's misunderstanding of copyright is now in the past; he helped (under supervision) to clean up the CCI case, which was closed in September. The experience has left him wiser. That's what we need: people who are prepared to learn and grow and change. He will make a fine administrator. -- Dianna (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Almost exactly per Boing, to the letter. --John (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support, seems to have learned their lesson. Dank and Diannaa set out the argument well. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support A mistake, even a serious one, made in good faith, admitted by the perpetrator and used as an educational experience does not preclude adminship. Was a good admin before and will, I believe, be a better one in the future.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
47. Thoughtful support As a project we are absolutely awful in supporting our experienced users as they approach burn out and high profile users are particularly susceptible to being thrown off the edge by a baying crowd as soon as a chink in their armour appears. I wouldn't presume to analyse PS' state of mind when they exploded so spectacularly in 2010 but as a former admin who often found the stress and burn out hard to handle myself I wouldn't be too harsh in applying a loss of trust argument for that reason alone. I do personally feel that towards the end of his time as Rlevse this user was too rule bound and unforgiving themselves for my taste as an admin but not to the point where they were outside the acceptable range of behaviours and once we accept that this user has learned a hard lesson about close paraphrasing the remainder of their contributions are impressive and a credit to the project. Given the aforementioned baying mob I certainly can't blame them for trying to restart under a new identity and this really does bring this RFA to a single question - was this user deserving of deopping at the time they flamed out. The answer to that is quite clearly no so I am bound to support now. That said, I would strongly suggest to PS that they stay at admin and don't take on any further advanced permissions or roles as once you have flamed out once that baying mob is always there in the sidelines with unlit torches and pitchforks at the ready. If this user is susceptible to wikistress than I hope his friends will do a better job helping him manage it this time round. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support: This individual is a highly experienced wikipedian with a solid track record of consistent improvement and significant content contributions to the project. I was one of the people who worked on the CCI and reviewed dozens if not hundreds of this individual's edits, finding very few problems far outnumbered by wikignoming, vandal fighting, and solid content contributions. To the extent where were a few problems, they had been made in good faith with no ill intent and were easily remedied. I also worked in collaboration with this editor on an FA that was TFA a few months ago (Yogo Sapphire) and found him an excellent person to collaborate with on a project with good faith, an ability to work well with others, and an openness to any improvement for the good of the project. It is well past time to welcome Psky back into the realm of admins. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. I'll join the club in the smoke-filled room. I wouldn't have showed up here were it not for the rather ridiculous suggestion that this is connected to Jack, now successfully banned, a decision I also didn't agree with. I guess that puts me in good company with these four nominators. FWIW, I've worked with PumpkinSky though initially I had little sympathy, but while helping out with the extensive COI cleanup (I'm sure that's linked here somewhere) I got a good feel for first, the extent, but also second, Pumpkin's good faith. The RLevse drama is in the past, as far as I can tell, and I have no problem giving the tools to this new and improved editor. Maybe they'll finally give me my boy scout badge now. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Editors who do not exist cannot possibly misuse the tools, therefore granting them administrator privileges cannot have a negative impact on the project in any way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The candidate does "not exist"? What the heck is this supposed to mean? You know, for the majority of us more gnomish editors, this entire Rfa reads like stereo instructions, and I for one can only scratch my head at this baffling Rfa... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this mean he's quit once again in yet another a hissy-fit?Fladrif (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry, the bafflement will soon be over, I'm sure the entire RfA will be deleted as an attack page within moments. (Btw Fladrif, he quits much less often than quite a few high profile editors I can think of.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

51. Strong Support: Absoultely no reservations on PumpkinSky getting an admin bit...zero. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support We are all human and perfection is not required but competence is. Pumpkin has shown that he can be trusted again. meshach (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
53. Weak support. Saul became Paul.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support: Two years is sufficient time for anyone to have moved on from previous problems. My abiding memory of Rlevse is how he reacted when the Chzz RfA turned sour. Rlevse spent a lot of time in dialogue with Chzz and showed that he cared for another editor in distress. Of all the qualities that impress me, the ability to treat others in a humane manner is the most telling. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    But the diffs raised in oppose 18 are from just a few months ago. Do they represent "a humane manner"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Doc shouldn't cherry-pick diffs out of context. PS's reply " You should put them in the holding area if that's what you want, not leave them in the general area" was perfectly "humane" and should have been the end of the matter. Instead the poster insisted on pursuing his complaint in a rather sarcastic manner. You may think that appropriate; I do not. --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherry-picking, eh? I'm not a "spin-doctor" - and PS has withdrawn this RfA request. Don't blame me for that. Doc talk 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support I'm impressed with his dedication to the project. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Rzuwig^► 21:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support I trusted this user before he resigned being an an admin and still do. I have faith that this user will be a trusted and respected admin under this new account. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support As per noms whom I respect.Prolific editor whose commitment and dedication to the project cannot be questioned.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
59. What a coincidence! Just earlier today I was thinking to myself, "I wonder if PumpkinSky will ever attempt to regain the sysop bit — that would be great for the project." In most RfAs, we are left with nothing but an editorial track record to gauge someone's suitability for the role of an administrator, but here we have the unusual benefit of already knowing whether or not promoting this user will be a net positive for the site. History bodes strongly in PumpkinSky/Rlevse's favour. He was an absolutely superlative administrator, and I am of the opinion that he should once again serve as a sysop. The close paraphrasing thing was a misunderstanding on his part (and a pretty common one at that), but he handled it quite well when all is considered. I haven't yet looked at the opposes, but my guess is that they're generally of the opinion that Rlevse has abused the trust of the community by socking around the issues with his prior account in attempting to have a clean start under a new username, and I understand their concerns, but I still don't feel as if anything he's done has reached the level where we should no longer have confidence in his abilities and his dedication to the project. Consider this a strongest possible support. Kurtis (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - I strongly favour second (third, etc.) chances. (Note, in the past I strongly supported the candidate for arbcom.) But I simply do not currently feel I would trust the candidate with the tools and responsibilities of adminship at this time, per my criteria. - jc37 22:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Per User:Moriori's comments: In my recollection, he did quite a bit more than "stumble one time". Setting aside the huge amount of work that others had to do to clean up copyright concerns (paraphrasing) after him, there are the myriad levels of deception and rampant socking, and the repeated refusal to even accept he did anything problematic, amongst other things. Trust as an editor? Maybe. Trust with the tools and responsibilities of adminship (including user-rights which potentially allow for much deception and disruption)? No. - jc37 23:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   If you need to quote me, do so accurately. I did not write "stumble one time" but "stumbled at one time." There is a difference in meaning. Regardless, after reading the opposes and following my nose a bit deeper I see why there is so much opposition. PS is capable and experienced but they are not the only considerations and I should have pondered it a little longer before voting. I now have, and consequently, am withdrawing my support vote.Moriori (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   My apologies, I did not intend to misquote. And indeed there is. - jc37 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I've already opposed, but the question I think worth asking (above all the many many others) would be: Is this request a first step as a ramp up to running for Arbcom again? - jc37 23:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I never used more than one account at once other than the fully disclosed "Dog" accounts before and now. Many users have these so-called "joke" accounts. I have no intention of running for Arbcom and wish I never had in the first place. Arbcom greatly diminished my joy for the project and I only wish to work with others to create good content. I've more than had my fill of wiki disputes. PumpkinSky talk 23:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Socking - that was not my impression. And that just merely noting the socking while you were supposedly "gone". Not even getting involved in the whole rtv/blocked/banned questions controversies. (AN/I is a royal pain to find diffs in.) While I would welcome evidence to the contrary, the socking is only part of the concerns leading me to oppose, though indeed a large part. - jc37 00:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   How would he abuse the tools, if given them?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I have a better question for you: per " Arbcom greatly diminished my joy for the project and I only wish to work with others to create good content. I've more than had my fill of wiki disputes. " - If this is true, what the heck does he want with the tools? I look at his answers to q1, and I don't see how he will avoid such. There's a difference between welcoming him back as an editor, and entrusting him with these extra tools and responsiblities of adminship.

   But to try to answer your question, I don't trust him to assess consensus, the most basic and fundamental thing that an admin does. If someone doesn't understand consensus, they can't understand BOLD, IAR, and a host of other things. I don't trust him to interpret policy according to current common practice/policy/arbcom stricture. And I don't trust him to not use the tools to engage in further deception in the future.

   And no suggestion that he's contributed X amount of content as penance will change that simple fact.

   If others consider that he is valued as a content contributor, great. But he doesn't need admin tools to continue to do so. - jc37 02:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   To be clear: I have no doubt that Rlevse can rattle off policy in his sleep, as I noted above. I simply do not trust him to actually adhere to it. - jc37 02:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Jc, back when he had the tools as Rlevse, when I was a newer user, he came to my attention by rectifying a nasty edit war over technical issues of concern primarily to aficionados on a article to which I contributed, in doing so quite clearly acted as an admin should, resolved the situation neatly. Though the dispute gives me the twitches to remember, here it is, and you will note that Psky (as Rlevse) was outstanding, neutral, never took sides and did an excellent job of refining the discussion and keeping it on track. I think this is an excellent example. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   As I said above, I have no doubt he knows how to go through the motions. But there has just been too much deception, and too many ways that the tools can be abused. This will likely turn out to be a poor analogy (most analogies do, when trying to explain actual situations), but imagine it's like handing the deck to a magician who is a master with cards, to be the dealer for the poker game, where he has something at stake he wishes to win. If he has no qualms with using his knowledge and skill to win, the others will stand little chance to catch him abusing the rules, to gain what he would consider a favoured outcome..

   It's been shown in the past rlevse has had no qualms abusing the tools to get what for him would be a favoured outcome, for himself or for his friends, or whatever situation he wants to "help". And that apparently includes socking, IP use, non-transparent communication, multi-voting in discussions (either through sockpuppetry or meat puppetry or both). Amongst many other things. It's clear his past usage of CU has helped him know the ways to fool the system.

   This is simply not someone I would want to trust with any additional tools. How can we? The egregiousness, and the repetition, and the seeming willingness to say whatever it takes to get what he wants. He claimed to not be socking or evading being blocked. And all the while, he was. There is just too much. So I'm sorry, while I think it's great if he's truly positively contributing to the encyclopedia, content edits have zero to do with restoring trust to grant adminship. And there is just way too much potential for deception and disruption. - jc37 21:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I must admit that it is with a sense of feeling great irony that I post this link (another long story): User:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair. Though this covers only some of the various situations (and is presumably from the perspective of the user). - jc37 17:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   You should be feeling a sense of shame on mentioning that link Jc37, not irony. However, it's worth re-iterating, as I've pointed out above, that the page you link to doesn't mention any actions of Rlevse at all, therefore is of no possible relevance in assessing his fitness to be an administrator. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   It gives links to links. There really is no way to illustrate using mere diffs. There's just too much, for one thing. For another, there's a fair amount we'll likely never know, as well as things which are no longer available to link to. - jc37 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Here's another link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattisse/Archive#29_June_2011 (see also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive231#User:BarkingMoon_sock_tagging.). Noting this quote, which would seem to suggest that regardless if barking moon was rlevse, or merely someone he knew in person, even that account was apparently not the original account: "...The community needs to first decide whether there is sufficient grounds to require that BarkingMoon disclose their prior identity. There are only a few instances of BarkingMoon having made references to their prior identity, and if BarkingMoon is Rlevse, they have done a fairly decent job of a clean start, with a completely different focus and now demonstrating proficiency in German.[2]..."

   sockpuppetry? meat puppetry? clean start? right to vanish? behind the scenes discussions? The one thing missing seems to be transparency. And I'll have to find the link, but I remember one person commenting concerning rlevse's socking that, as a former CU, he knew exactly how to sidestep the CU tools. - jc37 18:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   And another link User_talk:Geometry_guy/Archive_30#I.27m_at_a_loss - shows quite a bit of IP usage for block evasion (and a seeming finesse for dodging being tracked by checkuser...) - jc37 18:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. I'm really sorry about this, and I have a high opinion of the multitude of nominators, but I just cannot feel enough trust for the candidate in light of the copyviolations, and what appears to me to have been a grudge against some of the editors who work in the FA process, that manifested after the return under the new user name. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Tryptofish, as someone who went through many, many articles at the CCI, I can tell you that the "copyviolations" were minimal; mostly a few too-close paraphrases in a few articles that were easily fixed. This individual did not commit "mass copyvio", he simply, in good faith, sometimes wrote a little too close to the source and didn't catch that he was doing so; it's a common problem in this sort of writing and one where his skill has significantly improved since the original issue was raised -- I am quite frustrated at this continued accusation, as I spent hours and hours working on the CCI and I know firsthand what was there and what was not. I also worked on the ItsLassieTime sock farm CCI and if you want to see mass copyvio, THAT was a mass copyvio! Psky is a solid contributor who continues to improve his skills and deserves this opportunity. I encourage you to review the actual record for yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for raising the issue with me. I take what you are saying very seriously, but my oppose still stands. As I said at the beginning of my original comment, I feel sorry about opposing, but this is the way that I feel, and not without careful consideration. Indeed, I can remember Rlevse being very nice to me on several occasions, which makes my opposition all the more painful. I guess I can ask you, in turn, to see WP:CDARFC, to see why I care about limiting adminship to users I am confident that I can trust. If I saw the issue as being a simple matter of one isolated mistake amid an otherwise distinguished record, I'd be supporting in the spirit of a second chance. But I also pointed out the apparent grudge about FA, and, now that we are discussing it at greater length, I will add that I read many of the leaked ArbCom e-mails, and they gave me a disconcerting feeling of a lack of good judgment. Truly, I do not have the necessary trust in the candidate at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. All I can do is shake my head at the prospect that this RFA will pass easily (24-2 at the time I'm typing this) despite the candidate's colorful history, which the four lengthy nominations cheerfully shrug off. Anyone who wants to educate themselves about the candidate should take a trip through Rlevse's talk page history; I could dig up the links I remember about this candidate and post them here, but it seems pointless. It's fine for this editor to come back to edit, but returning the bit strikes me as insane. Townlake (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I will provide one link: A lengthy discussion of Rlevse's account history and re-emergence as PumpkinSky, dated February 2012. Happy reading. Townlake (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I note that I'm not aware of any related dialogue that occurred after this thread, so if anyone has pertinent related info to share, please do link to it.[reply]

   Rather recently I had a friendly discussion with jc37 which leads to further reading on the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Nod. But there is a rather BIG difference between talking about someone returning to editing, and trusting that person with the tools and responsibilities of adminship. - jc37 06:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Not sure why PumpkinSky wants to be an admin. With a spectacular implosion in the past, it doesn't seem like a very wise idea to me. Seems like you're doing a great job on content and that's a pretty good place to be in. --regentspark (comment) 02:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Per the above comments. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose I opposed QuiteUnusual's nomination because of close paraphrasing issues, and to be consistent, I should do the same here. Close paraphrasing and plagiarism are serious problems around here, and we need to send a clear signal that such things are not OK. Does that mean PumpkinSky can never be an administrator? I don't know; I don't have a specific formula for redemption in mind. But I just feel that it's still too soon to give him the tools. (I'm not asking for a ban or anything; just that he isn't put into a position of authority.) Beyond that, there are other things that make be uncomfortable. Edits like this seem a little weird for someone who was (AFAICT) an administrator on Commons. I think I understand what you were trying to do, but there's a manipulative quality to it (and the subsequent edits to that page) that worries me. Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose The answer to Question 3. I believe an administrator of the English Wikipedia should have thick skin. Breaks are fine, burnout periods are expected, but on-wiki disputes that make one so passionate they have to walk away from the project's account shouldn't, IMO, get the buttons. They are for dispassionate use, and PumpkinSky's history has failed to show this detachment. Keegan (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That was 2 years ago, nothing like this happened during the PumpkinSky time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Less than two years ago is my experience. The answer is simply an example. I have my experience with PumpkinSky, you have yours. Keegan (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per Jc37 above. If the copyvio issues truly were nothing more than an accident, it still shows a crisis-level degree of carelessness that is incompatible with being an administrator. Trusilver 08:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per the numerous instances of poor judgement. The plagiarism itself was forgiveable, but not the subsequent events. Someone with an admittedly weak understanding of copyvios shouldn't have returned to editing anonymously. Epbr123 (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose - sorry, but the blip in February is too recent for me to have regained enough confidence. Keep up with your other good work and I'll happily support in the future. GiantSnowman 10:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose I can't support any nomination like this in good faith based on the prior events which led to PumpkinSky leaving and returning under this account. It's simply too soon, for me. He has worked hard though, and I would support him in a future attempt, just not now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. Sorry I cannot trust him with the tools in light of all the history. He'll have to ask other admins for favors like the rest of us peons. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Not because of the history, but because this editor has just recently revealed their previous identity and just recently returned to editing (April 12) with community endorsement (Somewhat, but mostly 28bytes taking a risk and having greater faith than I) and I think it's extremely bad taste to put in an RFA at this time. The candidate should've given it a year of good editing with their history. There is not a single nominator up there that I would say is prone to mistakes, but it seems to me that the number of nominators reflects that this candidate knew the RFA would be controversial (or he just has a ton of love =D) and it almost seems to me to be more about testing the waters to see where the candidate stands in the community. I can't support at this time when the candidates return itself is controversial. I do support the candidates return and I think the issue of copyright violations is long, old and buried. The candidate knows better now. If it were still Feb 12 then I'd say it has to be shown they know better. But we're 5 months into their return from editing and I haven't seen a diff provided in 5 months that shows the problem still exists. My oppose is strictly not about copyright but about bad form.--v/r - TP 13:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - still too soon after the great FA-copyvio problem of 2010 - especially considering that the candidate does not appear to have done much to fix the problems they left behind. If the candidate has really taken on board the problems with their copyright violations from before, I'd expect a lot more acknowledgement here of the problems and pointing out how they were fixed. I'm not seeing that. I'm not utterly opposed to ever granting this editor adminship, but not yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ealdgyth, please see my reply to Tryptofish above. As your wiki-friend AND someone who actually worked on the CCI, I can tell you firsthand that your understanding is incorrect. The "great FA-copyvio" problem involved a single paragraph that somehow escalated from a minor editing fix into a witchhunt. (Yes, there was a too-close paraphrase. What came after had a lot more do to with personalities than any actual error) Psky also did a great deal of review at the CCI and helped with the cleanup. (To answer TParis below, he helped clear a lot of the "wikignoming" edits so the rest of us could focus on the major content contributions. So the copyvio issue is not what you think it is, I went through dozens of this editor's articles and found relatively few problems, most of which could be remedied with a minor rewrite. I also worked with VSmith during the time Psky could not edit Yogo Sapphire, and we reviewed his work on that article meticulously, finding very few issues. If you have other issues with this editor, you are certainly well in your rights to state them, but the copyvio one is a red herring. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this not what I said?--v/r - TP 19:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The evidence that the candidate has fixed the problems are in the latest CCI here. The results were consistent with other editors. The candidate has improved their understanding of copyright and paraphrasing. If you mean they should've helped to clean up the mess, that seems like a bad idea. If the candidate's issue was that they didn't understand copyright, then doesn't it make sense that having them check themselves is going to produce an untrustworthy result? The only logical process was that others would have to check his contributions where he could not taint the results.--v/r - TP 13:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to helping close my own CCI, I've helped three other users with theirs: Ktr101 (5 Sep - 21 Oct, 114 clearings), ILT (2-4 Sep, 11 clearings), and Rcsprinter123 (6-9 Sep, 22 clearings). PumpkinSky talk 22:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose - No confidence will not crack under pressure and repeat the multiple mistakes of past. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And if he does ... what will happen?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dramaz, factionalism, and a big waste of time. Cue in the Br'er Rabbit case. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I imagine his buddies will run interference and shield him from any consequences. Skinwalker (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Like they did for Br'er, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Talking of dramaz etc., this little discussion it turning into just that - let's all nip it in the bud and get back to doing something useful? GiantSnowman 15:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Some tried hard. Somehow all four nominators of this proposal were rowing that boat too: [3] [4] [5][6]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and several of the nominators, myself included, have also strongly come out against a ban on Malleus, who is in the oppose column here. Why do you suppose we did that? Because Malleus is part of the PumpkinSky cabal? Or because some of us, myself included, don't like to see good but flawed contributors booted off the project? 28bytes (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And I opposed br'er rabbit being banned. But this page isn't a "request to boot off the project". This is request for adminship. Just because someone may not be supporting someone being blocked or banned, doesn't mean they necessarily may agree with trusting them with the tools and responsibilities of adminship. - jc37 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose - I've had it with this supposed "Right to Vanish." There may be such a "right" on WP, but it also has a correlated "Right to Never Again Be An Administrator" in my book. Four nominators coordinating the apologetics is another bad sign. 2010 was just two years ago — or less — not ancient history. Maybe my views will mellow on this........ in a decade. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I generally hate to !vote oppose but it's just too soon. AutomaticStrikeout 16:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Moving to neutral. AutomaticStrikeout 17:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose I very much appreciate the forthright answer to my question. However, there are several problems. Plagiarism is one. Though I believe the candidate has atoned for it I still think doing it in the first place disqualifies from a position of trust, especially since he had criticized others for doing it when he was an arbitrator. Battleground behavior and sockpuppetry during his block are also very concerning. Another observation I made as long-term Arbcom lurker was that Rlevse as an arbitrator usually voted his personal prejudices on cases without considering conflicting evidence, context, or nuance. I could provide a raft of details, but the first transcendental meditation and climate change cases are prime examples. As an admin he blocked editors who had content disputes with his friends. I accept that PS does not intend to run for arbcom again, but a basic property of adminship is some sort of eventual involvement with dispute resolution, and I don't have much confidence in his fairness. Finally, and this is little fault of the candidate, there has been a strong whiff of back-room dealing and off-wiki collusion in the events leading from his unblocking without consensus straight through to this RFA. Carrite alludes to this above. I cannot place any confidence in a process that emerges from a smoke-filled room. With regrets, Skinwalker (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose It is not often I find myself opposing a candidate. PumpkinSky has some outstanding contributions and is very well qualified in a majority of administrator related areas. However, I cannot support someone with this history, air of impatience and apparent copyvio stuff. With such a large amount of nominators, whom I respect, it would be hard to oppose such a candidate. But past mistakes will last a long time, and with me, I'm afraid right now is not the right time to endorse PumpkinSky for adminship. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rcsprinter, please see my replies to Tryptofish and Ealdgyth above. I worked on the CCI, and I have no concerns about any future problems. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose. Seeing how Basement12 (talk · contribs) was treated by PumpkinSky just three months ago when raising a simple concern on his talk page makes me believe that PS isn't ready to be an admin again yet.[7], [8], [9], [10] If an editor with no blocks and 23,000 edits since 2006 and gets treated this poorly, I don't see future disputes being handled any better with the added power to block people. Sorry. Doc talk 17:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    PumpkinSky, can you address this briefly? These diffs don't reflect well on you... Drmies (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Echo that PumpkinSky. These are concerning but perhaps there were extenuating circumstances? --regentspark (comment) 20:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You might say that. I recall the day rather well. I had a horrible work day and it reflected on wiki. Of course that is not an excuse. I apologize deeply. For a little more info, see User_talk:Basement12/Archive_7#Stay_off.PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A bad day at work?! What would a bad day at work in an administrative capacity be like? I've notified Basement12 of this. I've never met them before, and what led me to it was the "LEAVE ME ALONE" edit summary. After more investigation, I found a good-faith veritable DYK machine dismissed as a troll and then threatened by two of PS's pals for extra measure. I see no good reason whatsoever for the way he was rudely pushed aside and effectively silenced. Zero. Doc talk 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose. I'm concerned that some of those commenting here are attempting to minimise the problems with Grace Sherwood's TFA. For one thing the copyright/plagiarism issues were not minor, they were quite significant, and for another Rlevse and others tried to divert the blame onto me, for not having checked the sources during a copyedit; I don't consider that to have been an honest thing to do. I'm also unhappy about the shenanigans surrounding the FAC director earlier this year, in which PumpkinSky was involved along with at least one of his nominators. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose - Way too many problems in his past. I would never trust him with the tools again. Tex (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose per Keegan and Carrite. The copyright/plagiarism issue alone doesn't bother me, but responding to criticism from the community (whether or not the criticism is valid) by storming away and requesting an RTV shows a undesirable temperament for an admin. Personally I don't think anyone who has RTVed should be allowed back period (you know, kind of like the policy says), much less given a position of trust. SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong oppose. The sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, abuse of RTV, and gross violation of copyright/plagiarism issues and misuse of DYK processes that have been noted above are each individually is more than sufficient to disqualify PumpkinSky/BarkingMoon/Vanished User/Rlevse from mop duties, and collectively overwhelming. But, beyond that, with most RFA's one can only speculate on how the candidate would handle admin tools. In this case we know without a doubt. In his prior incarnation as Rlevse, he displayed a stunning lack of judgment both as and administrator and especially as an ArbCom member, including repeatedly and chronically being either unable or unwilling to determine when he was an involved editor in a dispute. Frankly, he never should have been allowed to return as an editor, and handing him admin tools would be utterly irresponsible. This is someone whose history at Wikipedia is crystal clear: "The rules don't apply to me" You can't hand someone like that the mop. Fladrif (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is BarkingMoon? I don't see it disclosed in this RfA. Was it a joke/"dog" account? Tijfo098 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    BarkingMoon was another user - later proven to be unrelated - who was accused of being Rlevse clean starting. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Far from being "unrelated" (a curious term given the facts) BarkingMoon was, IIRC, relative of Rlevse/VanishedUser/PumpkinSky. The behavioral evidence is overwhelming that Rlevse used that account to post. The vehement denials of that obvious misconduct on his part are, in my judgment, patent falsehoods. Fladrif (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not just to post, but specifically to RfA... - jc37 19:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And more importantly, do you have some concrete evidence he overstepped WP:INVOLVED? Tijfo098 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dozens, but I have neither the time nor inclination to go document all of them, as it is abundantly clear that this RFA is going to fail. Skinwalker has touched on it above with a couple of examples of Rlevse abusing admin tools to threaten and block editors who disagree with his "pals", and his irrational conduct in ArbCom proceedings. I suppose you could just peruse the nearly 200 entries in the AN/I Archives [11] where his repeated misconduct acting as an Admin has been brought up by a myriad of different editors.Fladrif (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't find anything conclusive about INVOLVED violations, but apparently Rlevse "quit" Wikipedia once before in 2008 according to this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose - Per the repeated attacks on the FAC group and the sockpuppetry. Maybe in another six or nine months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. Firm oppose. YOu still don't appear to grasp the difference between plagiarism and copyvio. I also checked the Franz Kafka article and, while I didn't find any plagiarism, it seemed to me that you had gone so far to avoid it that it seemed like original research. For example "Kafka was rapidly promoted and his duties included processing and investigating compensation claims, writing reports, and handling appeals from businessmen who felt their firm had been placed in too high a risk category; which cost them more in insurance premiums.^[1] [12]. I can't see where the source says that he directly handled appeals from businessman (which was the job of the department itself). As I read it, Kafka's job was to asess workplace safety arrangements. There is a para about him addressing a group of industry representatives, but this does not refer to 'risk category'. Moreover, it was the job of the mathematicians in the department to assign a 'risk category', and so on. Unless I am very mistaken (perhaps someone can check this), your work is now too liberal with the sources. The trick is to say no more than what the source tells you, without it being a closely worded copy. While I may be wrong, the default position, given your history, is a firm oppose. Sorry. Hestiaea (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Hestiaea account has very few contributions. This dispute involves an off-line source. Someone else should probably verify the claims. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose - pending resolution of the Basement issue. Simply the wrong temperment for an admin. Achowat (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose What a strange, convoluted, drama-filled Rfa. Yes, until such time as a good explanation for the User:Basement12 interaction can be provided, I'm off the fence and into the opposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose per the links provided by Doc9871 re. Basement12, before even considering the other issues. If you consider that trolling, then I'm afraid I do not trust your judgement in dispute resolution. KTC (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some more brusque conversations involving PumpkinSky. I found them when I was checking out his first contribs. This, This, and this. In the first and last one, he also gives the impression that he is trying to appear as a new, inexperienced user. He added unsourced material and then bugged people with WP:OSE arguments, which looks tantamount to trolling given that we now know they came from an experienced editor. I don't know if his CAPS LOCK RAGE was also faked there or not, but I'm amazed that someone behaving like that ever was an arbitrator on Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28. Oppose- It's too hard for me to trust an administrator involved in dramatic situations and controversies. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose I'm sorry. I'm usually an easy editor that you can get to support but anybody that socks is a no no to adminship. There are also a lot of other trust concerns I am finding with this candidate. Perhaps later whe n those issues have been alleviated.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 22:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. I'm fine with a correctly done WP:Cleanstart, but when someone willingly violates WP:RTV, they've lost my trust and have pretty much zero chance of getting it back. I don't know enough about his past to make an informed decision about it, but messing with RTV is more than enough for me to oppose this candidate for as long as I edit this project. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose because of temperament concerns. The conversations linked above by Doc9871 and Tijfo098 tickled my memory, and I realized PumpkinSky was the one who had gotten very upset at the mistaken early close of the Core Contest here. PumpkinSky did apologize later, but losing one's temper with the admin tools available could be a lot more problematic, even if you say you're sorry afterward. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose I'm disappointed to see this RfA because at time when the community has had enough of drama and factionalism, in my view, it's adding to it. Specific reasons to oppose: Grace Sherwood FAR, Grace Sherwood edit history showing many edits rev-del'd, FAC RfC, this recent outburst at the Core contest, Franz Kafka Peer review closed 24 hours after sourcing issues raised with the justification the issues were addressed, a subsequent conversation regarding sourcing issues, and another, yet another, and more. I'm particularly concerned about a referencing that's I've asked about at least three times because I can't find it in the source. The paragraph in the article mentions Erzählung and a friend named Pollak, but the source does not show this information Erzahlung, Pollak. My feeling is that by pushing to ask for adequate sourcing on this page, which went through FAC in only a few days and which I questioned, I've made myself extremely unpopular, but the choice seems to either let it go (which I strongly considered), or to speak out because in the end we are responsible for the content presented to the readers. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience support Pumkinsky for adminship. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - There is a trust deficit here. I fully believe that PSky is here to improve the project, and that he has the skills and experience to be an admin. I admire his drive and his courage in owning up to past mistakes. However, he misled myself and many other users. That trust doesn't reappear quickly. The admin position can cause stress (the trigger of problematic behaviour before), and I'm not sure I'm comfortable yet with him having these userrights. (I am very comfortable, nay, happy with the fact he is editing here again!) The Interior (Talk) 23:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Parking here, thinking about this a bit. --Rschen7754 00:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to support. --Rschen7754 00:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral. I can't get behind you 100%, and so I can't put myself in the support column. But I do think you've learned from your past mistakes, and so I'm not in the oppose column either. In my mind, what's stopping me from supporting is not precisely what you did, but how you reacted in the aftermath. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral Having recently opposed for close paraphrasing, I can't in good conscience support. However, I have interacted with PSky on some articles and have always found it a positive, enjoyable experience. As for stress reactions...we have plenty of sitting Admins who seem to have stress management issues and they're still serving Admins. Intothatdarkness 13:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I'm not convinced that he should be given another chance, nor am I convinced he should not be. AutomaticStrikeout 17:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral - waiting on response to questions 9 through 12. Will default to oppose if these aren't answered. Volunteer Marek  21:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral - While I have no problem with this users contributions, I feel that the RTV issue means can't offer my full support. Mdann52 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral - It is noted that the User has withdrawn, without answering the questions posed. This seems similar to the action in the February discussion, linked in the questions and is a pattern to be noted and perhaps explored should there be future such discussions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.