Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nyttend

Endorsement by Elen of the Roads

I would like it noted that no-one asked me to endorse this, and I didn't take any part in drawing it up. It is an accurate account of what happened, and I am on record as saying that in the first event, I thought all three editors could have done better, but I specifically addressed Nyttend as to the misuse of admin tools, as I felt this was way more serious than the actions of the other two. I could not believe it when I saw that he had done it again, and the way he has dismissed users who have queried it suggests he believes he is beyond accountability and his beliefs about the proper interpretation of policy are not subject to any other person's opinion. This is why, with some regret, I have endorsed this RfC. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand this RfC and I am hopeful the individuals bringing this RfC might enlighten me.. As far as I can see, there was one instance of RevDel which was controversial, and was shortly thereafter undone. The admin did respond to Sandy, but as far as I can see eventually gave up on a conversation that was polite only in denotation. Are there other instances of RevDel by Nyttend which are complained of? Because unless there's more, this strikes me as ... petty in two different senses of the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. I failed to see the point of continuing the discussion and dropped out. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Nyttend used Rev Del TWICE, not once. The first time is the incident where Nyttend RD'd an edit summary by Sandy that accused Psychm of vandalism. (Clarify - SandyGeorgia's edit summary said null edit to point out improper use of twinkle to and allegation of vandalism in previous edit summary. This is not something that would ever warrant Rev Delete) The second time was yesterday night, when Sandy left him a 'taking this off my watchlist' message [1] and Nyttend RD'd it. He put it back two minutes later and hoped no-one would notice, but that's not the point. The concern is why would he think of using it in the first place? RD is only for the grossest, defamatory, offensive, I'll-get-my-lawyer, disgusting etc etc remarks. The first instance was a mistake, and I wouldn't have gone as far as RfC for it, although his disregard for consensus is alarming. The second use is either gratuitous (totally the wrong attitude for an admin with regard to tool use) or completely incompetent (in terms of understanding of policy), and breaks the golden rule: DO NOT USE ADMIN TOOLS TO FURTHER A DISPUTE YOU ARE HAVING. If it warranted - which it certainly didn't - he should have contacted another admin to remove it. It's this second instance that has led me to certify. Once is a mistake. Two is a pattern. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me he's stated in his response that he won't do it again. Isn't that enough? Also, I am uncertain who you are talking about with the "three editors". Who are the other two editors and what "could [they] have done better"? --Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction to EofR's post above: Nyttend RD'd an edit summary by Sandy that accused Psychm of vandalism. No ! The opposite. Psyhchim62's edit summary alleged I had vandalized, I entered a null edit to indicate the edit reverted wasn't vandalism, Nyttend RD'd my null edit summary, while leaving Physchim's original allegation of vandalism. Big difference there: I was only inoffensively correcting a record that was left in edit summary alleging I had vandalized. What good faith editor wants to be accused of vandalism? Nyttend's RD not only left the original allegation that I had vandalized-- it accuses me of again vandalizing and entering a personal attack via edit summary. In other words, he reinforced the first wrong with a worse second wrong. That's wrong. He could have avoided an RFC by retracting and indicating he understood the proper use of RD; instead, he stood by his "opinion", used RD again, and continues to allege I vandalized. Given that he now knows that I wasn't vandalizing, that he continues to say this is a rather large AGF breach.

• cur | prev) 20:22, October 29, 2010 SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (8,292 bytes) (null edit to point out improper use of twinkle to and allegation of vandalism in previous edit summary) (rollback | undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:12, October 29, 2010 Physchim62 (talk | contribs) m (8,290 bytes) (Reverted 4 edits by SandyGeorgia (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Mandarax. (TW)) (undo)

EotR, would you mind striking and correcting your post immediately above this? Some attention-deprived editors only read the first few lines, and may not get far enough to realize that I did not accuse Physchim of vandalism. I was entering a null edit to correct the record regarding an improper allegation that I had vandalized (and although I quite politely asked Nyttend for clarification, I have yet to receive any answer of how to handle such situations in the future). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I've been out all day visiting family, and the post above was made while dashing out the door. I have now struck the erroneous sentence and inserted a clarification. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Query from Nikkimaria moved from main page

Orlady, if I may, might I suggest you clarify who you mean by "all parties"? Is this limited to only Sandy and Nyttend? Does it include those endorsing Sandy's statement? Does it include those mentioned in her statement? Given how misunderstandings are so commonplace in text-only conversation, it might help to be more precise. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've moved this here to respect the RFC process and instructions. Within any section, editors may endorse; if they have a different view, they start their own section; and if they have questions, they place those on talk. I think the answer to your question is that the absence of endorsements to Orlady's section would mean you don't agree with it as written, and if you have an alternate view, then you have to start your own section. That is my understanding, anyway, and one problem with the RFC forum of DR is that ... no one cleans up when instructions aren't followed, so I'm doing it myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize. I should note, though, that the first line here ("Pardon me, but as I'm not a drama fan, I've never participated in anyone's RFC before, so") wasn't part of my original comment; I think that was Nyttend? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ah, ha, that's where the missing piece went ... I just corrected it on the RFC, but couldn't figure out where I lost a piece ... deleting it now. Sorry for the move, but getting an RFC off on the right foot is the best way to make sure subsequent posters understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's no problem. Glad someone's around to correct my mistakes :-). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My reference to "all parties" was intended to refer to anyone and everyone who is engaged in continuing to expand this minor incident into a major controversy. I didn't want to take the time to sort through the history to figure out who is doing what to whom right now. I do know that it's not worth starting World War III over this kind of thing. --Orlady (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ADMIN and the recommended steps for dealing with admin abuse of tools? The history is simple; I followed it, Nyttend didn't. I politely requested multiple times that he address the misuse of tools-- he continued to assert I vandalized. I'm surprised that fellow admins consider abuse of tools as "petty", but WP:ADMIN and WP:DR say this is the only way to deal with it when polite requests to the admin misusing the tools yield nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hardly surprising at all that fellow admins consider the abuse of tools to be "petty", just par for the course unfortunately. I note that Olrlady has offered her opinion without having taken the trouble "to sort through the history to figure out who is doing what to whom", something that is also far too common amongst the present admin cadre. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of the basic facts of this case, and early on I opined that Nyttend's action was not consistent with the "rules" for deletion of edit summaries. If I had been Nyttend, I would have sucked it up and restored the summary. On the other hand, the summary did seem unnecessary and pointy -- if I had been SandyGeorgia, I don't believe I would have written that summary. However, all of this is incredibly inconsequential. Nyttend's unwillingness to restore an edit summary is hardly a hanging offense, and the continued contention several days after the original event reminds me of a protracted argument between a pair of 5-year-olds. I don't want arguing 5-year-olds to tell me all about who took whose pencil, who retaliated by maliciously untying whose shoelaces, and who rubbed dirt on whose doll; I just want them to stop fighting. I feel the same way regarding the extended contention regarding this incident -- that is, I didn't want to read the whole history of the last few days of continued fighting about this because the sensible next step is to drop the matter and go do something more productive. --Orlady (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, then perhaps you would take the time to tell me how I should deal with an inaccurate accusation about my editing left in an edit summary should it occur again, since no one yet has answered that question, which I quite politely posed to Nyttend in my very first post to him. And there was no "continued fighting about this", so please stop complicating the matter with further inaccurate info: I took a short break to deal with significant IRL issues (and the intervening mainpage TFA debacle), came back to find Nyttend still wouldn't respond to me, queried him again, end of story. If you're not willing to review the history, at least stop adding heat rather than light with commentary worthy of a 5-year-old. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that what's done is done, and nothing positive is going to result from continuing to rehash what happened or what should have been done differently. As for how you should have responded, I don't believe you need any advice on how to defend your honor at Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasoned response. On your first point, this is not "rehashing"; Nyttend had ample opportunity (four days) to deal with the matter. Instead, he refused to respond adequately, used RevDel again, and is still alleging that I vandalized. DR lays out the clear steps to addressing a problem of this nature. On your second point, "defending my honor" doesn't seem to be working, since several editors who have axes to grind with me are driving this discussion in ways that obfuscate the matter at hand: abuse of admin tools. Should this matter not be resolved via RFC, ArbCom is the next step in DR, and at that venue, editors who are grinding axes will also come under scrutiny; what is relevant here is whether DR works to address admin abuse, or is simply another step where editors can grind personal axes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Instructions

I've cleaned up now, and bolded the instructions at the bottom of the page (who knows WHY RFC puts the instructions at the bottom where no one will see them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by Orlady

Response to outside view by Orlady

moved from main page

Pardon me, but as I'm not a drama fan, I've never participated in anyone's RFC before, so I'm not sure of whether I'm allowed to comment here. You'll notice that I attempted to drop the stick and back away several days ago, only to be brought back because other people said that I hadn't replied yet. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia response to Orlady

moved from main page

It would be courteous of you to "take the time to sort through the history to figure out who is doing what to whom right now" before opining on an RFC. Regarding "dropping the stick", only one of us has a stick (admin tools) in this case, and they were improperly used after 1) I made a good faith mistake, 2) the first editor who accused me of vandalism in an edit summary using Twinkle knew it was a good faith mistake, 3) I entered an inoffensive null edit correcting the vandalism allegation, leading to 4) Nyttend using admin tools inappropriately and continuing to accuse me of vandalism (which he still has not corrected, and continues to allege in his Response here, in spite of eight admins disagreeing, see WP:AGF). WP:ADMIN lays out quite clearly Nyttend's responsibility in such a case, and mine to politely request that he clarify; only one of us didn't adhere to that, in spite of numerous requests from me and others. Four days is long enough to wait (and I had serious intervening RL issues, not that that should matter); you may call it "petty" all you want, but admin abuse of the tools is supposed to be taken seriously on Wiki, and resolved via Dispute Resolution to avoid ArbCom. But Nyttend "couldn't be bothered". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

the "dropping the stick" phrase refers to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Rd232 ^talk 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is awkward. SandyGeorgia is commenting here on a comment that I made on the talk page. I have responded to the general substance of this comment there. I don't believe I'm permitted to respond here, leading me to think that SandyGeorgia should move the comment to the talk page. --Orlady (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding of RFC that the involved parties may respond in their sections; however, the RFC process is so muddled that I may be wrong. This is complicated by the fact that no independent person monitors most RFCs-- in the past, I have requested someone do that or have done it myself, when I was merely an observor, but since I'm an involved party here, I don't want to be the one to request someone keep this on track so I won't be accused of bias. Don't know what to do-- similar for threaded discussion below in Rd232's section. One would think that posting this RFC/U to WP:AN would be enough to get an uninvolved person who understands RFC processes and instructions to referee here, but that doesn't seem to be the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment seems to be a response to a statement I made on this page (above, under #Query from Nikkimaria moved from main page, not to my statement on the RfC page. I have already attempted to explain my comment there. I stated "I am well aware of the basic facts of this case, and early on I opined that Nyttend's action was not consistent with the "rules" for deletion of edit summaries." I perceive that several days ago this "thing" stopped being "about" Nyttend's redaction of the edit summary and became a much less focused contention over how different parties reacted or failed to react, how people perceived those reactions -- basically who said what to whom when -- and that I didn't need to study the minute details to reach a conclusion that the reaction of all parties was disproportionate to the action that precipitated it. Earlier I made an analogy to squabbles between young children (as a veteran parent, that is an analogy that I find meaningful); now it strikes me that this controversy is analogous to the real-life situation described in an article that I de-prodded and expanded a long time ago: Montreal–Philippines cutlery controversy. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but the RFC evidences that others see it differently. And I'm trying my hardest not to be offended by your characterizations, since IMO any misuse of admin tools is not "petty", and a former arb recommended on Jimbo's talk page that I start an RFC (which I only did after Nyttend's second use of RevDel, and after Laser brain made no progress in discussing with him). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"This whole episode has been unbelievably petty -- on the part of all parties." ? "Petty" seems an inaccurate and unhelpful description of the behaviour of all involved. Rd232 ^talk 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Queries to NCM

Thanks for appearing :) I did not want to ask you because 1) I owe you on one RFC where you asked me to monitor and I failed you!, and 2) I didn't want to appear to have a COI. Could you explain some things to us about RFC here? What "right of response" do Nyttend and me have on the RFC page, and where do we enter feedback? How do we deal with the threading in Rd232's section? Can you add links to talk in the appropriate places on the RFC page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If involved parties want to make another view in the RfC (like a statement other than that which is already presented with the other certifier), then they do that in their section. (example (see where the view appears in relation to the rest of the RfC) But responses to particular views or comments or discussion is usually made/moved here. (example) A link can be provided on the main page to such discussion (example). Occasionally, comments to clarify endorsements (like Elen's in Rd232's view) are just left there if it's to the point (though ideally it would be like this). Hope that makes some sort of sense! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that's what I had done, so when you link your examples above, can you clarify further? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you again for helping out here. RFC instructions need a serious overhaul, but pls don't ask me to help, because I don't have time. Maybe in 2011 :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples added. Will look into updating them again when I've got a chance. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why this is important

Wehwalt, Orlady, others who are concerned about the pettiness or dead-horseness of this RFC: This is of utmost importance because it represents a negative trend in the admin core. Namely, a tool is abused or at least grossly misused, and the response to criticism is either completely lacking or inappropriate. In this case, you will note that despite his extensive rhetoric, Nyttend still hasn't acknowledged that he violated policy. He is arguing over and over that his "opinion" is that the edit summary was vandalism and should therefore be removed. It's a red herring, because the issue of whether the edit summary is vandalism is actually unrelated—even if it's vandalism, it doesn't get removed under RevDel unless under the most egregious circumstances. That's not open to interpretation or opinion. In fact, the greatest concern in making RevDel available to admins was that this very thing would occur.

A few days have been allowed to pass, and suddenly it's beating a dead horse? No, we need address the issue. Too many every day editors are asked to carry on smartly when at the receiving end of an admin's misuse of tools. Nyttend's attitude is nicely encapsulated on my Talk page: "I am under no responsibility to act in any way" and "My beliefs about the proper interpretation of policy are not subject to any other person's opinion.". I'm sorry, but that's utterly incorrect. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Has he repeated it? A single misuse of Rev Del (if it was) and Nyttend (whom I don't know) is being nailed for failure to confess error.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you not reading any of the text? Yes, he has misused RD twice.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You just amended the text; there has been a bit of a lack of clarity. A self reversal after two minutes, after name-calling by Sandy, does not exactly excite me.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you're acting like you've got a pony in this race. Nyttend is not being "nailed"; Nyttend had four days, and many polite queries and suggestions from me and others that he deal with the matter. Instead, he used RD again, again refused to dialogue with me, leaving no recourse but an RFC. DR is the only recourse regular editors have when admins won't correct or acknowledge abuse of the tools: it was fully within Nyttend's power to avoid this RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would rather that Laser Brain had reproduced a more representative part of what Nyttend said; reading the summary quotes reproduced might easily lead one to the conclusion that Nyttend had sworn to repeat his actions: In full, Nyttend's comment was (made on November 5, by the way):

I continue to see the edit in question as edit summary vandalism, and removal is our policy for vandalism. I am aware that my opinion is rejected by others, so I will not again delete it, but I will not restore a thoroughly inappropriate comment. I am under no responsibility to act in any way: I am not an employee of anyone here, and thus only edit or perform other actions when I choose. I marvel because no good reason exists to object to an action that is immediately reverted by the one who performed it: as it had no effect on any other individuals (contrary to blocking and quickly unblocking), I caused no harm. Finally, you will observe that it is not I who chose to revisit this subject today after many days of quiet; if you wish for peace, you can contribute by ceasing to beat a dead horse.

So, what I see is this. Nyttend feels he was right, but recognizes his view is not widely shared and has undertaken not to repeat it. After several days, the issue is brought up again; it does not seem to be the case that Nyttend refuses to discuss it, as he certainly has at Laser Brain's talk page. Again, this seems petty.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And I would rather you produced an accurate representation. In his response, Nyttend continues to allege I vandalized. If you think false accusations aimed at regular editors (AGF), misuse of admin tools (REVDEL), and failure to communicate after improper use of the tools against an editor (ADMIN) is "petty", perhaps you should not be an admin yourself. You also might recognize that the arbs have made it abundantly clear that DR should be followed in these cases-- I could have taken it straight to ArbCom, but I'm giving Nyttend a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what can be more accurate than a direct quote, in full. As for your attitude on my adminship, you are entitled to your opinion. Incidentally, if you took this to ArbCom, am I correct that they are at liberty to examine the conduct of everyone involved?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, surely you don't need me to answer that question for you, now do you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rhetorical. The time is not here to quiz me on ArbCom procedures ;)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Good: now that we've got that straight, I'll add below the quotes you failed to address. I'm quite able to think, and take responsibility for my actions and do my own writing (you may be acquainted with people like that, or not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely there is no need to tell me of your intent? Or is that giving me ten to run? :) If so, you will be disappointed at the quality of my running ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you never disappoint !!! Your FA writing is well recognized, wherever it appears. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but without your hard work at FAC, all I would be doing is writing in the sand and watching the tide come in.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that the essential point of this RFC would be clear by now, but I see that it's still muddled by all the unrelated rhetoric. If someone acts incorrectly, it doesn't go away just because they didn't object when others were cleaning up the mess. I think LessHeard vanU states it rather well. Re: "being nailed for failure to confess error". No, not in the slightest. This is an RFC. Request for comment. That means we're asking for wider community comment on the situation, of which the error is only one part. The other part is the follow-up attitude that he is not subject to opinion or rebuke, and the continued denial that he broke policy. The policy is not ambiguous on this matter. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is the primary reason I commented, as another example of such attitude (though in the case indicated, it's mainly that his interpretation of the policy trumped consensus, and then his subsequent accusation of harassment). --Rschen7754 18:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Query for Nyttend

... the exclusive purpose of a pointy edit summary; as we don't permit attacks to be made on Wikipedia ... and I will thus not remove it again. ... Wikipedia does not attempt to regulate opinions; as long as I intend to abide by consensus, which in this specific case means that I won't again remove this edit summary, ... Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(Emphasis added)

At issue is your misuse of an admin tool against policy, which you have not addressed. Your response 1) continues to allege that the edit summary was a pointy attack (which although inaccurate, is irrelevant nonetheless, since it still wouldn't fall under REVDEL crit. even if were in your exclusive "opinion" an attack), and 2) your response is limited to "this edit summary" and does not address your general misuse of the tool and misunderstanding of policy. You have still failed to grasp the point, which is misuse of an admin tool, failure to AGF, and departure from ADMIN policy quoted in the RFC in dealing with your error. The concern is that you don't seem to think admin policy applies to you, and that your "opinion" about how to use the tool supercedes policy, and you are free to do the same to another editor. I believe your fellow admins have made this more clear than I can; could you please address this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Second query for Nyttend

Could you please explain this edit summary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation here. Rd232 ^talk 11:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, by not sucking it up and admitting to his mistakes, Nyttend is contributing to prolonging the contention that I still think should have ended days ago. --Orlady (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should have; the path towards that was made clear to Nyttend by numerous editors, and he chose not to act on their recommendations. So, it appears that there are attitude issues at play, and that very attitude may be what led him to violate policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So...

...dumb question: after we've all been "endorsing" each other and whatnot -- what exactly is supposed to happen here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's got a while to run yet, so other voices should chip in. The hope generally is that the editor about whom it is raised recognises their problematic behaviour - occasionally this even happens. At the end of 30 days, someone uninvolved will summarise the outcome. If in general the outcome were to be that the subject had committed sufficiently serious 'offenses', a community ban could be requested (as with User:Gavin.collins recently. If there is a case for requesting desysopping, this would normally go to Arbcom, with the RfC/U forming the basis of the case. If the outcome is that the subject's behaviour is felt to be problematic but not so serious as to warrant further action, the summariser can say this, and recommend that the subject modify their behaviour. The RfC/U then acts as a 'written warning' as it were. If the subject agrees that they were at fault, or that they need to modify their behaviour, the RfC/U summary should note this. It is also possible that the consensus does not support the position of those who endorsed the RfC/U. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

When an admin abuses the tool, refuses to hear community consensus and acknowledge that policy is understood, and an RFC is opened, then it runs its course because other issues of abuse are likely to surface in the course of the RFC. (I found one stat page that says Nyttend has used RevDel 11 times-- I don't know the accuracy of that, but those instances need to be dug up and evaluated-- lesser known editors than myself may not have had sufficient "voice" to complain.) If they don't, at minimum, the admin may learn from his mistake. Eventually, in theory, an involved "referee" will close the RFC with a summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of those were tests or he reversed them immediately. One is a BLP violation that I also would have suppressed. A few others are problematic to me: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcaryan&diff=370680229&oldid=370678482&unhide=1 is hiding his own unfortunately worded edit summary; https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=ChristChurch_Cathedral,_Christchurch&diff=next&oldid=368166579&unhide=1 just seems baseless to me. Ucucha 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Ucucha ... I just haven't had time. So, we have other problematic instances of his use of RevDel. Considering we still have no uninvolved party refereeing this RFC, I'm not sure how to add that now, but I suggest that someone needs to add an outside view that adds these instances (??). Those of us who aren't admins cannot see the suppressed edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can create a statement—should that go under "Outside views"? It may not be "outside", since I already commented on Nyttend's inappropriate revdel that led to this RFC. Ucucha 14:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea ... we need a complete overhaul of the RFC process. You should have seen what it took me to get through the instructions just to figure out how to start this page. It ticks me off, because a lesser-experienced editor would give up, and I don't know how to deal with the threaded discussion issue. But, my take from past RFCs and common sense is that the only "involved" editors here are Nyttend and me; hence, we can respond in our own sections. I do not know if that is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added it as new evidence, but I'm not sure that's what you are supposed to do. Ucucha - you could add it as an outside view as you have not certified the RfC, in which case, please just revert my edit. I have also quoted from the page on the tool itself, where it is very clear that using the tool to cover your tracks may result in desysopping. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I already added a view—and I think I commented here to say that, but I suppose I forgot to save it. No problem with the same evidence being in your section, though. Ucucha 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my comment on the RFCU page, we must accept that mistakes are made, and ensure that people learn from them. The people who seek to minimise this have I think not fully grasped the extent of the clusterfuck of mistakes that Nyttend has exhibited in relation to this incident (in combination with a seeming refusal to learn from and clean up his mess).. It is quite extraordinary for a single incident to lead to desysopping, and normally talk of it is massive over-reaction; yet adding everything up here I'm not convinced that I would argue against it if it were a serious proposal. Besides what's already been said, my view here is influenced by the timing and flawed reasoning of Nyttend's responses at User talk:Laser brain. Listing of issues (possibly incomplete):

1. One complete misapplication of RevDel, compounded by a complete misreading of the situation
2. Against a number of admins pointing out his error, continuing to maintain he was correct
3. Failing to apologise to the user whose action he mischaracterised, indeed repeating terms such as "vandalism and "pointy"
4. Second complete misapplication of RevDel, compounded by it being an alleged attack directed at him on his own user talk page (WP:INVOLVED), not much improved by undoing it swiftly given the associated comment ("no harm in this being public")
5. Templating a regular - with a clearly inappropriate message (aimed at newcomers) to boot
6. "I continue to see the edit in question as edit summary vandalism, and removal is our policy for vandalism." [2] This is just all kinds of wrong as an explanation for point 1. It's not even the relevant policy (WP:REVDEL). It's treating RevDel as merely removing text from a page. For an admin of 3 years' experience, given what had already been said by then, is just appalling.
7. Here claims to have read the policy before doing the first RevDel, which only makes the action worse; if he'd merely misremembered the policy it wouldn't be so bad. I'd like to know what part of it specifically he thought supported his action.
8. Same place, referring to the second RevDel, says "Because it was not on another user's talk page, it had no impact on other users while it was deleted; because it was not on a talk page or project page, it had no impact on the community at large while it was deleted; and because it was not on a page that appears in mainspace, it had no impact on the encyclopedia proper while it was deleted." I see no basis whatsoever for this logic in the RevDel policy - which he claims to have recently read.
9. Just as the original action on the second RevDel displayed an apparent ignorance of WP:INVOLVED, his subsequent comments give no indication he is aware of its existence.
10. In his Response to this RFCU, mischaracterising this comment by SandyGeorgia, which was the second RevDel in question, declaring of it "and nor do we say that we'll do our best to remember such personal faults".
11. Using edit summaries to communicate instead of talk page comments, ineffectively and in a delicate situation, [3] [4] [5] rather than user talk page comments (as eventually materialised [6]), is also unhelpful, and again raises judgement issues. Clarity of communication matters, and whilst it is often imperfect, an admin should know better than to try to respond in this sort of situation via edit summary alone.

Rd232 ^talk 14:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of the "Charlie foxtrot" word, but yes, that is what Nyttend created out of a matter that was fully resolved before he got involved and displayed his utter lack of knowledge of the tools, policy, or common sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

EotR, you are correct that non-admins cannot see this. It should be pointed how disadvantaged we non-admins are in dealing with admin abuse; when I first (quite politely) raised this issue with Nyttend, I was completely unaware that he had abused of RevDel policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ps, what is the "Researcher" group referred to there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen posted the RevDel'ed edit summary for that one ("So you're not dead; Sorry"—it does sound terrible when one doesn't read the context of Nyttend's post) on the RFC page. Researcher is a user right that gives access to deleted content and is supposed to be used for people doing research on Wikipedia, but I don't think there are any "researchers". Ucucha 15:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Christchurch RevDel summary mentions "Edit summary vandalism" again, a concept with no foundation in the RevDel policy, and which is a bit of a stretch from WP:Vandalism - and which furthermore again is inapplicable: it's an uncivilly worded justification for an edit, not vandalism. Rd232 ^talk 15:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope it is evident now that this is not a "petty" issue, and that lesser experienced or known editors than myself are at a serious disadvantage when admin abuse of the tools occurs, and that is part of why I brought this RFC. A simple case, with an experienced editor, is the only way to see if DR works on Wiki wrt admin abuse: lesser known editors would not be heard, and this was a very clear and simple case of abuse, that became even clearer as other admins weighed in. What happens to lesser known editors whose talk pages aren't as watched as mine is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in response to that I've added a note to WP:REVDEL on both making requests and asking for RevDel use to be reviewed. Rd232 ^talk 17:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That helps, but you admins have to understand how grossly underinformed even an experienced non-admin like myself can be wrt the admin tools ... I am infamous for asking dumb questions at ANI :) Until this post from Dabomb87 to my talk page:

For reference, see Wikipedia:Revision deletion. I must admit I am struggling to see how Sandy's edit summary could be classified under any of the RD criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not have even known where to look for this info. Again, a lesser known editor, who doesn't have many admin TPS, might not know where to go. Is is possible to have a link to the policy page coded in to the use of the tool, so clueless non-admin editors (like me) know where to go? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean; the tool currently just crosses things out in the page history (there is a link to the policy from the Deletion log entry); it could be changed to clarify what's happened, with a wikilink to the RevDel policy page. WP:VPR for that I think; would need a software change I believe. Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that points to another thing Nyttend could have done better-- I clearly asked him in my very polite first post to explain this. He could have pointed me to the policy page, and justified his RD based on that policy. Instead, he replied with "You made an edit with absolutely no purpose except to denigrate another editor: that's edit summary vandalism", and I didn't even know the policy, or where to find it, until other admins started weighing in on my talk page. This is not good-- not all editors are as tough as I am, and if admins hadn't weighed in, I might have thought he was right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed at VPR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Full text of the administrators guidance on the RevDelete tool itself

Administrators

• Log redaction (outside of the very limited scope of criterion RD2 for the move and deletion logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs, whether or not proper.
• In case of redaction of log entries, please also check if any report pages need to have some revisions redacted.

• • In case of grossly offensive usernames please report the user to oversight who can reblock the user with 'hideuser' enabled, removing all logged occurrences of their name. Please also check the user's contributions and any edit summaries where they were reverted or reported.
  • In case of a page move, check the history of the page, since the move leaves edit summaries in the history. If an offensive title was used also consider the log of the title it was moved to. Additionally, if the page has any protection, check the protection log, since moving a protected page creates move log entries for the target.
  • In case of speedy deletion redaction, please check at User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion/Subpage.

• Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration or desysopping.
• RD5 and RD6 should be accompanied by additional clear explanation.
• If you are redacting prior to seeking oversight, please read the updated policy note first. Do not enter RD4 or other obvious wording as the reason. Forward the oversight request promptly.
• To avoid any potential log issues until bugs are fixed, please do not:

• • delete more than one revision at a time;
  • use this tool on any deleted revisions.

Please confirm that you intend to do this, that you understand the consequences, and that you are doing this in accordance with the policy.

(Reposted here because it cannot be seen by non admins. The tool component is below the "Please confirm...") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

Actually, this is in MediaWiki:Revdelete-text. Ucucha 15:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wondered if it was somewhere else, but couldn't work out where. Don't think it does any harm to repost it here thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Since I know almost nothing about admin tools, just to make sure I'm clear:

Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration or desysopping.

This is the applicable portion here, to my and Phsychim62's "poorly considered" but good faith mistakes at Sisto? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The tool is specifically for use only "for grossly improper content, and not permitted for ordinary matters". In my opinion, this means it has to 'out' somebody's personal info, or be actually libellous in the real world, or be grossly obscene abuse(worse than the example I used in my RfA), or racist abuse of the kind that could get you arrested in the UK, or a similar level of bad thing. Calling someone a paedophile for example. And the comment about hiding poorly considered actions has in my opinion to be specifically aimed at the temptation to cover up one's own (or a chum's) booboos. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Elen of the Roads for sharing that. I've never wanted (nor tried) to redact an edit summary, so I haven't studied at the rules for that particular admin tool, which is relatively new. As a new admin who has been studying these things, you likely are more familiar with the current guidance on the use of admin tools than many "old" admins are. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, EotR. I still wish someone would clarify to me the original question that Nyttend (or anyone else) has never answered. If you are accused of vandalism in an edit summary, how do you correct that for the record? Edit summaries stand in the history of the article, and being accused of vandalism is not pleasant. Entering a clarification elsewhere will not be apparent in edit history to future editors. What does one do in such cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly one ignores it because nobody whose opinion matters will draw any conclusions from that sort of thing in isolation. The issue vis-a-vis the person making the accusation will usually be handled via article talk or user talk. But if an editor feels a counterpoint is needed (to be visible near the edit summary in the History tab), a null edit as you did is the correct way to proceed. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps better than what I did would be to 1) start a talk section, and 2) enter a null edit that only says "See <link to talk section>"? That would avoid having a conversation via edit summary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It never hurts to point to the talk page, but talk pages get archived. Perhaps ideal would be to do both, so that any further conversation is on the talk page and the temptation of lengthy conversation by edit summary is avoided. (But as I intimated before, I personally wouldn't bother with a null edit and just deal with it on article and/or user talk.) Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the correct term is dummy edit; a "null edit" (as explained in that link) doesn't appear in the page history. Rd232 ^talk 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to view by DGG

I find it curious that people are continuing to endorse a view predicated on the issue being an isolated error, after it's been demonstrated that it wasn't, and concluding "The actions are what speak." Indeed, they do (see particularly point 4 of my view); one wonders if people are really listening. Rd232 ^talk 10:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We all agree with our own views, and find it curious that others do not unanimously agree with us. That's life. I did not find your summary of events convincing, personally, and so did not endorse it. Do you think that questioning "if people are really listening" will bring those who do not agree to agree with you? It has not in my case.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there was an off chance it might have made people reconsider, even if they didn't change their mind. Since you've taken the effort to reply, why not take the effort to explain why you didn't find my summary "convincing"? Rd232 ^talk 13:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Inquiring minds want to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To wit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As of this writing, five people have endorsed DGG's view, which was written before Ucucha's view revealed other instances of same. Three of the five endorsers signed before additional instances came to light; only two after. It is well known that some people don't listen, don't read evidence, and will come to RFC to grind personal axes. These things happen at RFC; should the case eventually escalate to ArbCom, if more misuse of tools comes to light, it won't matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To wit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just got home after too long a drive (and an even longer story I won't bore you with). @Rd232, it would be tedious, I think, to explain, and I am not certain I can, it just seemed to me to be a more limited summary than would like, and perhaps could have been made more complete by more context. Sandy, you surprise me. I had not heard that, and thought that cronyism and the tendency of friends to vote to support a party was more of a problem at RfC, as it is in many areas of the wiki. Live and learn. I will have to look for people who have said what you said, in the past, as it is "well known" per you, that should not be difficult or perhaps you could point me in the right direction?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

One sample that I just came across (there are others): Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise. Almost zero input from uninvolved editors-- just more of the same axe grinding and lining up along ideological lines from the article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I was really looking for more detail than that. What would you add to or change about my summary if you were rewriting it? If it's a minor detail, it should be easy to explain and not deter endorsement; if it's more significant (as is apparently the case), it's worth explaining even if it takes more effort. For instance you could do a subpage redraft based on my original text, or even do your own view adapting my summary as you would want - I would not mind at all, quite the contrary. Rd232 ^talk 21:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would rather leave it at that. However, I will rethink whether to join your submission.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The tendencies to support friends and grind axes go hand in hand in my experience. There is a general tendency to turn up and rehash old arguments, the format encourages it, and (on the principle that the best form of defence is attack) a good way to support a friend is to attack the person raising the problem. Although mercifully we have not seen that here - the opposing viewpoint is merely that there is insufficient to warrant the RfC. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the opposing viewpoint, speaking for myself anyway, that there is insufficient left to be done to justify the RFC. There is broad agreement Nyttend was out of line. He's been talked to about that. Perhaps he does not fully admit it, but I doubt there's a dry seat in the house at the Nyttend residence, and that he will be touching RevDel anytime soon. I don't see what more needs to be done. Wrap it up and go home.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would, but two other things have come up - one is the evidence from Fastily and Soundvisions about image copyright, and the other is the way Nyttend argues (accusing people of harassment and incivility when they are pointing out that he has misinterpreted policies). And SandyGeorgia remains upset that he accused her of vandalism, which everyone but Nyttend is agreed it was not. Can we find a form of words to sum this up that all would agree to? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, but it wasn't nice either ... what do you propose?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me think about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not upset anymore: I AGF and try to work with the person until the lack of GF is proven-- he passed that point, hence not worth worrying about-- but he for darn sure made me miserable when I had bigger things going on. Wehwalt, what wasn't nice-- the original dummy edit, or telling him in spades what I thought of his behavior after giving him a chance for four days and reading eight admins explain how wrong he was (which was wronger than I originally realized, since I hadn't read REVDEL)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The spades. Why was it necessary? What did it help?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it after the fact, probably nothing; people who lack those qualities aren't likely to change by being told they're lacking them. Next time (I hope there's not a next time), I should come up with something that might actually be effective, and realize that qualities that are important to me might not matter a whit to the person I'm talking to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. And is it necessary to utterly humiliate Nyttend? Unnecessary roughness! Piling on!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that he yet understands REVDEL or will refrain from using it, which is the "Desired outcome" I listed in the RFC. I don't see that anyone has yet gotten through to him. Do you have suggestions for how that might be accomplished? And honestly, it's the failure of AGF that troubles me as much as the misuse of REVDEL-- I'll be darn if I should have to spell out to some admin on a website what events led to me making that BLP mistake-- that's precisely why we have AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Granting our premise, what remedy to you propose?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Utterly humiliate? Dagnabbit, I missed the part where we stripped him naked and drove him through the mall. Sheesh. Seriously, while I can see some utter shouting and yelling, I cannot see him being humiliated. Some very nice people tried to explain the problem, but the editor in question on this occasion dug his heels in. He's not always like that, see [7] and [8], but most people wouldn't be prepared to apologise because the admin couldn't spot a blinding copyvio. If Sandy had somehow managed to apologise for making Nyttend revdelete her comment.......Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what Wehwalt is asking, but none of the conditions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing are met (if that's what he's asking). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Any summary of the outcome would have to say that it was agreed that Nyttend had used revdelete against the policy several times. It would be hard to say it was a mistake, because the tool serves you this bloody great notice. Revdeleting his own hinky edit summary (the 'your not dead' one) is actually worse than revdeleting Sandy, because the bloody great notice clearly says that you're not supposed to use it to cover up your booboos. So how do we say that in a way that will please all? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If Wehwalt is suggesting closing this (which I think is premature, considering new issues were appearing only yesterday), then it would probably be wise to consult NCMVocalist, who knows more about RFC processes than the average bear (almost no one shephards RFCs, which I find very troubling, but that's another DR problem). The other thing is, Nyttend pretty much hasn't responded, after his one response, so that does not look good for him, and closing it without giving him, I dunno, at least a week to think about it and respond coherently isn't in his best interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We could ask him what his views are on the subject of closing. Sandy, I was asking what the desired outcome from your point of view is?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's my suggested form of words: "Nyttend, time to hand in your badge". Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, second choice?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You would like my second choice of words even less than my first. It would draw attention to the discrepancy between a regular editor who misues rollback a couple of times and an administrator who misues revdel more than a couple of times but still refuses to acknowledge his error, compounded by the hypocrisy evident in that state of affairs. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt. I don't think we're nearly at the closing stage yet. I think the best thing Wehwalt could do is to speak privately to Nyttend, and urge him to come here and 'not set out to justify the position of the organisation'. The situation at the moment is that his continued silence is not making it blow over, rather, more worms are coming out of the woodwork, making it more difficult to charitably put events down to mistakes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this sort of thing, I don't like to do anything backchannel.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: As I listed on the RFC:

Nyttend demonstrates that he 1) understands RevDel, or 2) understands edit summary vandalism, or 3) will refrain from using RevDel in the future.

But, the image issue has also surfaced, and the harassment issue, so those aren't covered in my desired outcome, and I'm not sure how the RFC process accounts for those additional issues. And as this has evolved, a serious attitudinal problem is emerging, which is becoming a bigger concern than the original REVDEL misuse. See above for my problem with his response so far; his response only says he won't again revdel this edit, he has repeatedly said he thinks he was right, which is a very unsatisfactory response, and doesn't come close to addressing the entire REVDEL policy concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Early closure

I've reverted an early closure of the RFC as "stale" after 7 days' inactivity, since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing talks about 30 days, and Nyttend is on a wikibreak til the end of November, and the point of an RFCU is to resolve a dispute, not to document people's unhappiness. I've asked Nyttend to engage again here. Rd232 ^talk 01:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I won't have time for this for some weeks yet; I care about my career (and thus my grad school work) more than I do about Wikipedia. Short of saying "I was wrong on everything, and I will ask for all my user rights to be removed", I fail to see how any response that I'm able to make right now will be at all productive. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, because your only options are ignoring the input here after your Response, and martyring yourself. A reminder of the Desired Outcome: "Nyttend demonstrates that he 1) understands RevDel, or 2) understands edit summary vandalism, or 3) will refrain from using RevDel in the future." I don't agree with 3, but it is disappointing that you haven't managed to deal with 1 and 2 in the light of comments here. Rd232 ^talk 14:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just one note — somewhere someone said that I hid my own edit summary. I don't have any memory of doing that; if I did, it was a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"If I did..." [9] Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this, Rd232. I managed to miss the closure attempt on my watchlist. Some important questions are raised about the purpose of RFC. Out front, we're told that RFC is for dispute resolution or gathering community input on a matter. I'm sure RFC/Us open and close every month without any significant input from their subjects. In that case, it's used as evidence of a stop on the dispute resolution turnpike, usually en route to an ArbCom case. I'd love for us not to have to end up there. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody missed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If Nyttend really does not wish to input any further, then I would have no objection to closing by agreement. The agreement should (my opinion) include that "X Y and Z points were raised and the community /agreed this was an issue/thought this was unimportant/disagreed that anything had been done wrong/whatever, while the subject /promised to do better next time/said he didn't think there was a serious issue here/disagreed he'd done anything wrong/said nowt."

Nyttend, are you prepared to agree that you used revdel against policy several times, and also you called something vandalism against policy at least once (the edit summary on SandyGeorgia's edit that you revdeleted). If not, what might you be prepared to agree to? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing#Closing by agreement:

RfC/Us which are closed by agreement require a motion to close; this motion should be visible on the talk page of the RfC/U. Here, other participants can either express their support for closing, their requests to hold the closure off by no greater than 48 hours, or an oppose to closing the dispute early. Where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Draft closure

Taking points from the leading Views by endorsements (Bkonrad/20, LessHeard van U/17, Ucucha/17), for potential closure summary:

1. "troubling is the lack of any explicit acknowledgement by Nyttend that his edit was entirely unsupported by the relevant policy or that he has learned from this experience and will not again misuse revision deletion in similar circumstances"
2. "Admins are permitted to make mistakes in doing what they think is for the benefit of the project, and they are then required to take the consequences of making that mistake and work to correct that error."
3. "Nyttend has repeatedly used RevDel inappropriately"

In addition:

4. Nyttend's Response repeated his erroneous view of the situation, maintained that the issue was a matter of opinion rather than policy, and mischaracterised a post made to him ("We also don't describe that admin as having issues and lacking integrity, scruples, collegiality and courtesy (and nor do we say that we'll do our best to remember such personal faults)" [10]) to the detriment of the editor primarily affected by his actions. The post in question was one he had inappropriately used RevDel on. He did not further engage with the RFC, and on being asked to do so after it had been open for several weeks, responded dismissively. Rd232 ^talk 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend would have to agree to this. Basically, all parties have to agree - I'm assuming this is the endorsers of the RfC and the parties named in it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It says "all participants". I'm not sure it's logical for "participants" to include the subject of the RFC. And in terms of the consequences of interpreting it that way, it seems rather undesirable as a matter of policy for the RFC subject to be able to block what could otherwise be a consensus decision, especially when, as here, the subject doesn't engage much with the RFC. Rd232 ^talk 13:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I despise the use of words such as "repeatedly" and "numerous" unnecessarily. Nyttend used RevDel inappropriately a given number of times. State it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you (Wehwalt) there. "Repeatedly" makes it clear that there was more than one instance, without specifying a number; giving a number means that everyone agrees that all those mentioned were problematic. – iridescent 17:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly if there is a dispute about the number of times that the tools were misused, then that would be a fair compromise. Is there such a dispute?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is every time he used it, but it's only 4 times he's ever used it. There was Sandy, the time he revdel'd his gaffe, and twice on Christchurch New Zealand where he revdeleted what he called 'edit summary vandalism' which (a) wasn't vandalism (even assuming an edit summary can be vandalism) and (b) isn't grounds to rev delete anyway. The two rd'd edit summaries were "(Christchurch is Christchurch not ChristChurch)" and "Yeah... You bloody people need to know how to spell a place name..." Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

He used RevDel a few more times (as I think I said somewhere); some of those were appropriate deletions, others were just testing. Ucucha 17:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, those are quotes from the outside views, as endorsed by X editors. It's a fair point though, which can be easily settled by adding "[4 times]" to point 3. Rd232 ^talk 13:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You say that I responded dismissively; if I understand you rightly, you see my words in a negative light. I was trying to give a polite statement of "sorry, but I can't possibly do it due to real life issues". I don't remember the Christchurch issue, and despite looking in the Christchurch logs, I can't find it; there are only five entries in the Christchurch log, being three protections and two moves. Moreover, I marvel that you find a lack of "any explicit acknowledgement" that I will "not again misuse revision deletion in similar circumstances"; I have repeatedly make such explicit acknowledgements. If you be unable to find such a statement in the megabytes of text related to this RFC and the incidents that led up to it, you may take this sentence as such a statement. And believe me, I've learned well from this RFC about what consensus is on this matter. As I have said plenty of times on this subject, I respect consensus and will abide by it. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend, you want to take a shot at a draft? Surely this has been open long enough that we can come to an agreement on early closure, after all, it isn't really THAT early. Since we have no admin overseeing this page and preparing his own draft, so far, at least an agreed draft would be something that everyone is vested in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The log for the Christchurch issue is here, as linked in my view (RevDel logs don't get moved when pages are renamed). Ucucha 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I thought the page in question was Christchurch. And Wehwalt, I don't know what you mean: do you want me to draft the closing statement for my own RFC? Don't expect any more responses from me this morning, and I may be busy (per my wikibreak template) this afternoon as well. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can run a draft up the flagpole if we are closing by agreement. Me, you, Elen, Ucucha (I'm only looking at this section and I've forgotten who else has commented, so please forgive any omission). In my view a closure by agreement is superior to one imposed from outside. Any draft will be discussed and amended, it matters little who begins it. Or you can propose modifications to the draft above. YMMV. I also will be offline for much of the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Noting that in the absence of clear agreement by participants as to what wording to use, I'll be closing this without a summary in 48 hours-ish (as 30 days are nearly up). Of course, that it is closed without a summary does not mean that a wording cannot be agreed upon after that time; that wording can be inserted later. What I am saying is that one would need to consider if it's worth the effort if the discussion (about what wording to use in the closing) is taking weeks more than the time it would take to look through the whole RfC/U. So...putting it out there as a note to all participants. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed closure motion

No-one seems to have disagreed with Rd232's notion to pick on the statements with the largest supports as the basis. I propose we close with the observation below. I will contact all parties and request that anyone who opposes makes their view known. If we get any opposes, Ncmvocalist can close without summary.

no need to keep this hanging about

Nyttend has in four incidents used Revdelete in a manner unsupported by the policy. In one case he has used Revdelete in a way proscribed by the policy (to remove evidence of an edit summary he made by mistake). Prior to, and in the course of the RfC, Nyttend has disagreed that his actions are not supported by policy. Although he has observed that consensus appears to be against him, he has expressed his belief that he is entitled to continue in his opinion. Nyttend has not agreed to alter his behaviour. Indeed he disagrees that there is a need to alter his behaviour. Evidence has been presented that this is a feature of Nyttend's approach to admin activity. The consensus has been reached that an admin must be prepared to review their actions, and hold their hand up if they have made a mistake. In return, the community should be prepared to accept that mistakes do happen without malice being intended. The certifiers of this RfC do not intend to take the matter further at this time, but note that should any further misuse of admin tools occur, it is very likely that the outcome of this RfC, particularly where it concerns his knowledge of policy and his approach when he has made a mistake, may form the basis of further action taken by themselves or other editors.

Please indicate support/oppose:-

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think that the closure fairly reflects Nyttend's statement, which concluded "I'll respect consensus on this matter, and you won't know that I disagree." I would say that the comment indicates that he will adhere to policy on RevDel.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt - proposed close doesn't seem to fairly represent what Nyttend said. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems extremely partisan as an RFC summary, especially the part that starts "The certifiers of this RfC do not intend..." Suggest that the drafters come back with something more resembling the discussion that has occurred on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Wehwalt (talk · contribs), PhilKnight (talk · contribs), and Physchim62 (talk · contribs). This appears to be WP:BATTLE-type wording. It misrepresents the comments of the user in question. It presents the user unfairly. It is partisan in nature. It does not accurately represent the discussion from this RFC page. It is not constructive in nature, nor does it promote or facilitate positive collaborative improvement within the community. It comes across more like a one-sided attack. -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent! Thank you gents!! It has been very hard to get anyone to make any comments as to a proposal to close. I thought this might attract some attention. I think it's actually totally improper that I write a closing notice, as Sandy and I started the thing - that's why I alerted you all straight away. Now, does someone else want to write a proper closing statement, or do we want to let Ncmvocalist close this without a summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm content that there be no closing statement. I don't think much needs to be done here. Nyttend has been raked over the coals, arguably more than he deserved. I'd say let it go. I consider it suprassingly unlikely he will do it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of others have observed same on their talkpages. You'll find I have an aversion to letting things just peter out, because it invariably comes round to bite one on the ass later if it hasn't been nailed down, so I'm keen on confirmation that a selection on "all sides" agree to leave this here. I sincerely hope Nyttend doesn't repeat the experience. I don't know what SandyGeorgia's response might be.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

+

• Oppose - per Wehwalt, PhilKnight, Physchim62 and Cirt. The closing statement does accurately represent the discussion initiated from this RfC, having been written by one of the initiators of the RfC it comes across as a partisan motion that dismisses the good Nyttend has done while putting strong emphasis on his misdeeds. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:10am • 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Leave it here Nyttend has received plenty of punishment for his actions so far. We all know that if they stuff up like this again it will come back to bite them on the butt HARD, that's rather good incentive to not stuff up again IMHO. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although it probably fairly accurately represents my feelings on the matter I don't think it is a fair representation of the RfC as a whole. Given the range of opinions expressed I don't think any sort of substantial closing statement is possible beyond stating the facts, namely that "Nyttend misused RevDel but has agreed to be more careful in future". Dpmuk (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose or take to ArbCom. Access Denied 03:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Above seems quite harsh (and the bold formatting doesn't help). Suggest instead a slightly amended version of my prior proposal:

Summary of the summary: Nyttend misused RevDel but has agreed to be more careful in future. Major points from the leading Views by endorsements (Bkonrad/20, LessHeard van U/17, Ucucha/17) were:

1. "troubling is the lack of any explicit acknowledgement by Nyttend that his edit was entirely unsupported by the relevant policy or that he has learned from this experience and will not again misuse revision deletion in similar circumstances"
2. "Admins are permitted to make mistakes in doing what they think is for the benefit of the project, and they are then required to take the consequences of making that mistake and work to correct that error."
3. "Nyttend has repeatedly [4 times] used RevDel inappropriately"

In addition:

4. Nyttend's Response repeated his erroneous view of the situation that led to the RFC, maintained that the issue was a matter of opinion rather than policy, and mischaracterised a post made to him ("We also don't describe that admin as having issues and lacking integrity, scruples, collegiality and courtesy (and nor do we say that we'll do our best to remember such personal faults)" [11]) to the detriment of the editor primarily affected by his actions. The post in question was one he had inappropriately used RevDel on.

5. Nyttend was on a wikibreak for much of the RFC, and whilst he did not engage with further discussion of the incident that sparked the RFC, on the matter of the RevDel policy he did concede "I've learned well from this RFC about what consensus is on this matter."

Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rd232, this is much better, and could certainly be the basis of a close that has consensus. Personally, I'd suggest trimming the first item, keeping the 'explicit acknowledgement' part, but not keeping the 'will not again misuse' part, which I think is covered by 'I'll respect consensus on this matter, and you won't know that I disagree'. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was trying to do something a bit chronological, partly as a model for closing future RFCs, which is always such a trouble. Putting the suggested brief summary at the top makes the intended chronological sequence a bit clearer. Rd232 ^talk 23:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for closure without closing statement

I move the RfC be closed without a closing statement as moot.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And I Support. Actions already taken are sufficient. Let's close this and get about more important things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support although I'd prefer to see a simple neutral statement of facts similar to what I posted above, namely that "Nyttend misused RevDel but has agreed to be more careful in future". Dpmuk (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I could support a statement like that, if that was all it said.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a simple neutral statement is probably best. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support, this RFC really doesn't need a closing statement. The use of RevDel has been discussed and Nyttend has agreed to take those comments on board. Physchim62 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's OK with a short summary or without anything at all. I'd slightly prefer something that makes clear that Nyttend never retracted his accusation against Sandy, and in his Response mischaracterised something she said (and didn't even retract or strike after this was pointed out). Rd232 ^talk 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an area unlikely to gain consensus either way, and thus should be avoided.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the primary dispute between myself and Sandy has been resolved (she's welcome to contact me if that is not the case), and was resolved long before this RFC. I don't see why so much effort has been expended on this side-effect. If only other functionaries were held to the same degree of accountability! I formally propose

• The use of RevDel has been discussed and Nyttend has agreed to take those comments on board.

as an adequate summary. Physchim62 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with Physchim62's statement. I agree with you on YM; my speculations on why this is so are beyond the scope of this RfC/U.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that a neutral statement is needed, as one of the certifiers. Even though most of those weighing in above disagreed with me on the points of this RFC, I think it's unlikely that any satisfactory agreement is going to occur, especially within 48 hours. If the problematic behavior continues (disagreement over whether there was a problem at all notwithstanding) and Nyttend ends up at ArbCom, I'm sure the Arbs will come here take everything into consideration regardless of what our "closing statement" is. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much worried about a closing statement because 1) we're unlikely to get everyone to concur on one, and 2) it won't make much of a difference anyway. Nyttend has refused to acknowledge he was wrong, refused to clearly say he won't do same again, and it ends here unless he misuses tools again, in which case, he ends up at ArbCom not having settled this case conclusively or in a collegial, gentlemanly manner. Curiously, although he's had 30 days to retract and acknowledge that he violated policy and hasn't, YM is taken to ArbCom only seven days after an RFC is started on him and he DID acknowledge he was wrong and wouldn't do it again. Very strange standards here; no understanding why YM is at ArbCom after 7 days and acknowledgement, but Nyttend isn't after 30 days and no acknowledgement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Because YM's issues were much broader, and his acknowledgement limited to the original, overly narrow framing of the RFC, before going AWOL. Nyttend's issues are more limited, he left a wikibreak template, and he has declared that he has got the message on RevDel. And he hasn't said so, but my feeling is he has got the message on the validity of dummy edits as well. Rd232 ^talk 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it was a very poorly formulated RFC, escalated prematurely to ArbCom, but NYttend's issues were also much broader than RevDel, hence I don't support Psychim's closing proprosal ... they also evidenced a pattern. Still see a strange set of standards here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest closing with summary: "The use of RevDel has been discussed and Nyttend has agreed to take those comments on board but he has not explicitly acknowledged that he erred." Evidence of this RfC and of Nyttend's behaviours is now officially on record and can be referred to in case of any reoccurrence. -- œ^™ 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's just end this one. No closing statement. There is no point. I see no indication that Nyttend maliciously misused the tools, he mistakenly misused the tools. He has not done so since this started. There is no point. Let's do something constuctive, people.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend on closing

Elen of the Roads left the following note on my talk page:

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary.

Seeing that multiple closing statements have been posted on this page since Elen's note, I'm not sure now to which summary I'm supposed to indicate support or opposition. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Do you have an opinion on any of the suggestions? If you disagree with all of them, 'vocalist will probably move to close without summary --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Elen, thanks also for a similar note on my talk page; however, it seems I'm late to the party. I'm going to try to sort through this and see if I can lend my support to a closing statement. Thanks for the note, in any case. Saebvn (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just read above and below, and I don't think I want to step in this muddy puddle. If someone wants to formally hat this as closed, I do not object. Agree generally w/ Elen's statements below, but not sure where to indicate "support" or "oppose" for anything down there... Saebvn (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it is closed

Please let this not be used as precedent for anything, there was no consensus here for anything. I know that people may have different views of what consensus is, but there was none found here. Of course, the events described here can be used as material for subsequent action regarding any editor. But there wasn't even consensus this was a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I think that's a very disappointing statement from you. Did you really mean it how it sounded?

• There was a uniform consensus that Nyttend's use of rev del was not sanctioned by the rules as they stand - even Nyttend's 'supporters' did not argue that his use was in-policy, their whole point was that the infringement was so minor it should be overlooked.
• There was a uniform consensus that Nyttend should not use rev delete against policy again - his supporters all agreed that they were sure that he would not do so, and Nyttend himself said that he would not do so.
• There was a clear but not majority consensus that it was concerning that Nyttend seemed not to recognise that a consensus interpretation of policy disagreed with him - several of Nyttend's supporters expressed the opinion that he had now said he would conform to the consensus even though he didn't agree with it, indicating that they had a level of concern about it as well.
• There was a majority view, but not a consensus, that it was difficult to discuss with Nyttend that he might have made a mistake.

If Nyttend reads the notice before he rev deletes anything in the future, and only uses the tool if he can see the reason for using it listed in the notice, then no further issues relating to rev del will arise. However, if Nyttend misuses it again, the sky will probably fall on him. If he continues to be difficult to discuss with that he might have made a mistake, this RfC may well be raised again by other parties in other forums, and this is not something that you or I will have any control over. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have said, just above this, that Nyttend's use of RevDel was mistaken, but not malicious. However, beyond limited matters which in my view do not rise to the level of a RfC, there is little agreement, just look at the fragmented views on the project page.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we will have to agree to differ on the level of agreement. If Nyttend reads the policies he's trying to enforce and takes a slightly more conciliatory tone to those pointing out potential issues, it's moot anyway as far as I'm concerned, as there would be no reason to raise this again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. There is also tension between people's powers over their own talk page and RevDel policy that it might be helpful to address at a time when the issue is less charged.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I'm unclear what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the manner in which this RFC was conducted was improper? RFCs require two certifiers and this has three. RFCs don't requires consensus to exist. They exist to gather feedback on something. Even if no consensus is demonstrated about any of the issues (and that's debatable), the comments gathered are a useful step in the dispute resolution process. This almost certainly will never go further, unless Nyttend's use of admin tools comes into question again. In that case, this RFC will be taken on board as part of his track record and pattern of behavior. I guess I don't see the problem you are seeing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it unhelpful to give a second of thought or discussion over the axe Wehwalt is grinding here; the formulation and consensus of this RFC was concise and clear (unlike a certain other RFC underway right now), just as the failure of Nyttend to retract or acknowledge his misuse of the tool, or discuss other admin issues. Looks done and clear to me, and for now, the RFC served its purpose. Notably, Nyttend managed to never apologize, justifying my statement to him over a month ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess everyone's opinion is clear. Let's call it a day. Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I will end it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)