Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Aitias (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Aitias has been an editor on Wikipedia since December 2007, and an admin since September 2008. As of late, he has become increasingly uncivil in his comments and needlessly sarcastic and aggressive over issues, in particular the granting of the rollback tool and application of various policies.

Desired outcome

I'd like Aitias to give the tools a break, as I don't believe he can handle them properly. I'm not normally one to be calling for admins' heads, but his conduct lately has been totally inappropriate for an admin, and he hasn't even been one that long. I didn't even look past October in his edits, and my check of his edits was really just a cursory glance.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Removes rollback on an editor he was very much opposed to getting rollback, even though everyone in the discussion except one (and Aitias) agreed to granting. This is effectively wheelwarring. (Aitias declined to grant, Tiptoety granted, Aitias removed). He attempts to continue beating a dead horse and misunderstands the meaning of consensus (just because some disagree, doesn't mean their opinions aren't counted). He also suggests I have no common sense and suggests that people should look into someone's block log, before they revert someone blanking their own userpage. He also suggests I am a liar. Despite the clear consensus against, he still adamantly believed the user should not get rollback. At the point, they've probably been bitten off the site by this totally unnecessary level of scrutiny and high standards possessed by Aitias. More unnecessary sarcasm too.
2. This discussion was following his own suggestion of his decision being brought to WP:AN; I do so; Aitias responds with a sarcastic "Well done"
3. Removes a comment from his talk page, claiming it is being discussed elsewhere - the comment is critical of Aitias' behaviour.
4. Reverts EVula, a bureaucrat who was attempting to fix an RFA, which Aitias had moved unnecessarily.
5. Edits wars with bureaucrat EVula, [1], with the misguided belief that RFAs have numbers attached to them even if there is not a first one. Moving broke links on the RFA, which EVula was trying to fix. Aitias continued to aggressively argue with EVula over this [2], [3].
6. Responds sarcastically to a reasonable request from an editor on an AFD, where the rationale was hidden in the edit history. He then goes on to make slippery arguments, in a very aggressive manner.
7. Another sarcastic comment, to an editor who obviously missed the mistaken rollback from five months previously.
8. Just an example, but rollback is for any kind of unconstructive edit, be it spam, vandalism, mass canvassing or whatever. It should not be used for edit warring or good-faith errors on articles, or cases where it would not be difficult to use undo every time.
9. Unnecessary patronising tone to an editor who has been around since April 2008
10. More sarcastic comments, completely unnecessary. This was following his own addition of an entry to the block list, without any consensus.
11. Pointlessly reopened an obvious WP:SNOW RFA, citing edit count as a reason to keep open, and the fact the candidate hadn't been asked. The RFA was closed soon after by Tiptoety, and no permission was ever obtained. There is, in fact, no need to obtain any permission to close such RFAs early - it's against the spirit of the essays of NOTNOW and SNOW. Instead of leaving an additional comment to the candidate's talk page, he removes the notice completely, which is not in the spirit of talk page guidelines.
12. Interrupts a conversation by making a snide remark about my ability to be an administrator, which was off-topic and unnecessary in the discussion at hand. He then removes more criticism of himself from his talk page.
13. Instead of conversing in English per talk page etiquette, Aitias begins to post in Ancient Greek [4], [5], and when it is clear that I did not understand the language, instead of providing a translation, he makes more sarcastic comments, claims the language he was speaking was English (it was clearly not English) and drags the discussion out even further by going into detail on which language it is. When he finally translates the comment, he does so begrudgingly, stating it is "perfectly obvious" (I would have thought writing it in English on the English Wikipedia would have been the obvious choice, or at least providing a translation without being ridiculed over it). He then goes on to claim that translating was unavoidable (clearly untrue, as he made a translation above), and that he translated immediately - untrue as well, see this. (If you are unwilling to translate a comment into English, don't post in another language, simple as that. Aitias was trying to get a point across, fairly badly, in a language he cannot expect people to understand. He should have either translated in English immediately, not posted any Ancient Greek at all, or simple pointed to the article on the subject. He did none of these things properly).
14. Inappropriate use of rollback. If Aitias believes other users are not allowed to make errors when requesting rollback, he should obviously not be making any mistakes.
15. Another inappropriate rollback
16. And another
17. More fussing over rollback - the user is an experienced one from German Wikipedia.
18. Opposes an RFA; it is closed at 0/6/1 by iMatthew. Aitias disagrees, and posts a note to him, justifying keeping it open because of the number of edits the user has, despite not having a chance. Neurolysis closes per NOTNOW; Aitias reverts, using his note to iMatthew as the justification (i.e. no discussion or consensus, just Aitias' say-so). He then posted a patronising note to Neurolysis, again using his own say-so as justification for leaving the RFA open to get more and more opposes. The RFA is closed 2 hours later by I'm Sparticus!. Aitias' edit warring over the closure was totally unnecessary, and brought a total of 23 opposes to the RFA. Hardly encouraging to any user.
19. Makes a long rant to me, falsely claiming I "criticise everything possible regarding opposes both on RfAs and here".
20. More sarcasm, this time falsely claiming I am the only one who believes optional questions are irrelevant on RFAs. He then goes on to claim I am "badger(ing) everyone not agreeing with (me)", even though I didn't "badger" a single person. (This is just another example of the oppose badgering meme being thrown around with little thought into what is happening - a discussion).
21. More edit warring - this is over a note regarding answers to template questions Aitias posts on every RFA. Aitas posted the note in bold and italics format, and Verbal removed it. After some discussion, I removed the formatting.
22. Edit warring on a system message
23. Makes an unnecessary post to AN/I, complaining about Rjd0060's "misbehaviour". It was, effectively forum shopping. The end result was "resolved, no admin action necessary", and Aitias claimed at one point, despite obvious COI that it was not resolved, despite there being no admin action needed whatsoever, and was just Aitias using the page as a complaints zone. This was following this rude response to a page unprotection request made in good faith by a long-term editor.
24. Following removal of ABF's (a long-term commons admin) rollback right for "biting" (which was readded a few hours later), Aitias tries to policy wonk his way around the subject instead of accepting Frank's concerns.
25. Adds an unnecessary "strongest possible oppose" to an RFA (what's wrong with just plain opposing?), and bases his reasons almost solely on how many edits the user has (the user went on to pass his request with over 100 supports)
26. Hypocritically demands consensus, before other users can touch "his" rollback page ("never seen you here before"!) Despite the fact he regularly alters system messages without any consensus!
27. More forum shopping regarding rollback rights
28. Threatens to block a long-term productive editor for making one mildly inappropriate edit summary
29. Retires from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks over this discussion, which includes gems such as 'Yeah, “if you'd done your job properly”' and "Given the fact that I asked NightFalcon90909 and nobody else to explain his edit, I think it's more than appropriate to thank you sincerely for giving him the time to answer. So what? Just once again typical for this page" (more sarcasm and unnecessary anger over very, very little)

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIV
2. WP:TALK
3. WP:BITE
4. WP:EDITWAR
5. WP:WHEELWAR
6. WP:OWN
7. WP:COI
8. WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Majorly talk 00:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Acalamari 01:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Slakr

I usually have no interest in RFC, and I don't have any idea whether this truly has grounds or not, but when I ran across this RFC I was quite surprised at what seems to be multiple uninvestigated allegations of wrongdoing via diffs with no followup. That is, several of the grievances claimed by the submitter seem to be hastily assembled and do not accurately reflect what they assert. For example:

• Reverts EVula, a bureaucrat who was attempting to fix an RFA, which Aitias had moved unnecessarily. ... which he self-reverted, as he realized he made a mistake.
• Inappropriate use of rollback. If Aitias believes other users are not allowed to make errors when requesting rollback, he should obviously not be making any mistakes. Again, he self reverted.
• Another inappropriate rollback Again, he self-reverted.
• And another Again, he self-reverted.
• Edit warring on a system message One revert does not an edit war make. If someone makes a change and you disagree with it, you can clearly revert it once per WP:CCC and WP:1RR.
• Makes an unnecessary post to AN/I, complaining about Rjd0060's "misbehaviour". It was, effectively forum shopping. I don't know the background of this, but posting a message to ANI isn't forum shopping as I understand it. Forum shopping would have involved posting to AN, ANI, and barring that, using watchlist notice. If Aitias thought there was abuse or whatever, most editors, admins or not, seem to gravitate toward ANI for that kind of stuff.
• Threatens to block a long-term productive editor for making one mildly inappropriate edit summary Once again, grossly misleading assessment of the situation. The user Aitias warned made multiple hostile edit summaries: [6] ("It's not surprising I think that most admins are buffoons") [7] ("admins are crap"), [8] (" useless pile of pooh") [9] ("welcome to the page that admins ignore"), which was after another admin declined one of the editor's submissions, thus, it's also safe to assume the comments were, in part, directed at Thehelpfulone (the editor that declined his first submission), and not merely "admins."
• Instead of conversing in English per talk page etiquette, Aitias begins to post in Ancient Greek [10] However, it's also equally, f not more inappropriate to indirectly call someone a bullshitter in a post directly before that.
• Non-issues:
  • Retires from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks... Some people take wiki breaks.
  • More forum shopping regarding rollback rights Asking for a third opinion from administrators on AN isn't forum shopping, and should be lauded rather than grounds for an RFC.
  • Aitias tries to policy wonk his way around the subject instead of accepting Frank's concerns. People try to cover their asses— it's human nature.
  • The assessments of inappropriate sarcasm and abuses of rollback, followed by Just an example, but rollback is for any kind of unconstructive edit, be it spam, vandalism, mass canvassing or whatever. It should not be used for edit warring or good-faith errors on articles, or cases where it would not be difficult to use undo every time. Sarcasm, unless it violates WP:CIVIL, isn't usually a problem. However, it would seem that the one who added this diff, despite being able to recognize sarcasm when others allegedly post it, neglects to refrain from posting it themselves.
  • The multiple accusations of one revert constituting an edit war. All things being equal, a single revert is perfectly acceptable and is actually part of the consensus-building chain.

Long story short, I truly don't know if Aitias has a pattern of misbehavior or not; however, I do believe that many of the situations and diffs provided grossly misrepresent the situations from which they were pulled, with a net result of unnecessarily casting negative light on otherwise neutral or positively justified actions.

I highly suggest that the submitters revise the diffs, investigate the situations with more neutral eyes, and cite actual policy/guideline concerns from all angles in order for all visitors to this RFC to gain a more accurate view of the situation and of Aitias's actions so that they are able to determine if they actually are troublesome or not.

Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 05:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.