Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: 23:29, November 5, 2010), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC).

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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.

Statement of the dispute

Nyttend used WP:RevDel to delete an edit summary and allege edit summary vandalism. As of the time of the filing of this RFC/U, no editor has endorsed his use of RevDel as accurate, and eight admins have stated that it was inappropriate. Nyttend continues to allege "edit summary vandalism".

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.

Description

The incident began over differences between User:Physchim62 and User:SandyGeorgia (SG), related to FAC, ITN, DYK (while SG was working on the DYK copyvio issue), and Physchim62 telling SandyGeorgia to "STFU" on her talk page; they have since resolved their differences, and the editor involved with José Sisto, where a BLP mistake occurred, graciously accepted SandyGeorgia's apology for the mistake.

User:Nyttend subsequently used RevDel at the José Sisto article, alleging "edit summary vandalism" by SandyGeorgia (SG) and has stood by that allegation, refusing to retract or explain his use of RevDel. Editors should note that the RevDeleted edit summary was

(null edit to point out improper use of twinkle to and allegation of vandalism in previous edit summary)

There is no part of the RevDelete policy under which this deletion is warranted.

Diffs of original incident here

After SG's queries to Nyttend—and in spite of unanimous consensus or feedback against his admin action from seven admins (Dabomb87, twice, Ucucha, Iridescent, Bkonrad, and Orlady, ElenoftheRoads and John--see below), and several queries on his talk that he address the situation—Nyttend continued to NOTHEARTHAT, not respond, not acknowledge the original inaccurate allegation of vandalism, and allege that the edit summary contained vandalism and an attack: at 20:15

Simple solution offered at 20:17

Followed by another at 21.58, to which Nyttend responded, "... I don't feel like bothering with the situation"

And another admin weighs in at 00:23

Yet another admin weighs in at 05:18, but Nyttend still ignores SG and the issue.

Second inappropriate use of Revision Delete

Four days later, SG again requests a response, gets a non-response, and lets him know in SPADES what she thinks of his response. He reverts (again uses Revdel), and then templates SG for NPA. SG invites him to take it to ANI, again in SPADES.

• 20:13, November 5, 2010 Nyttend (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of User talk:Nyttend: restored content, edit summary for 1 revision ‎ (Can't hurt for this to be public)
• 20:08, November 5, 2010 Nyttend (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of User talk:Nyttend: removed content, edit summary for 1 revision ‎ (Personal attacks and edit summary vandalism)

Editors should note that the text of this edit summary was

(Re: Query: guy's got issues)

Again, there is no part of the Revision Deletion policy which would allow this to be deleted.

After two admins request he clarify use of RevDel, he continues to allege vandalism in his first use of RevDel (and here) and points out that no harm was done in the second.

Previous instance of inappropriate use of revdel

This has come to light. [1] As I'm not sure non-admins can see this, Nyttend posted with an edit summary of So you're not dead; sorry. He then decided that this was unsuitable, and revision deleted it himself.

The guidance page for admins that appears with the RevDel tool itself [2] - see here to see the content, as the page is not visible to non-admins - states

• 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.

and

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

Powers misused

• RevDeletion log

1. José Sisto
2. User talk:Nyttend

Applicable policies

• Wikipedia:Revision deletion

  The edit summary in question cannot be classified under any of the RevDel criteria, according to all (eight) administrators who have commented so far.

• WP:AGF
• WP:ADMIN

• Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. ... Most especially, administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

• 2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as ... assumptions of bad faith ... is prohibited.

• Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
• Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:

• 4. Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).

• If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against him/her or another editor, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Entire history of attempts to resolve the dispute directly with Nyttend provided above; additional posts made while this RFC/U was being prepared

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
2. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Andy Walsh (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

1. Whwya (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
2. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

First off, the edit at the Sisto article was admittedly made for the exclusive purpose of a pointy edit summary; as we don't permit attacks to be made on Wikipedia, I sought to remove it. I continue so to believe, and for this belief I am chastised, notwithstanding the fact that I have told the originator of this RFC that I respect the consensus of the remaining editors who discussed the question, and I will thus not remove it again. In this string of edits, I'm basically told that I need to change my opinion or face an RFC. Why must I change my opinion? 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, there is no good reason to beat a dead horse and continue to tell me that I'm wrong. Let me have my own opinion; it won't affect anything. You'll notice that I didn't interact with SandyGeorgia once the immediate aftermath had passed, until today when s/he revived this issue; it's not as if I have continued to beat the same drum day after day. Moreover, I am told that I have failed to explain my actions; I marvel at such a statement, for what is this? I'm also told that I DIDNTHEARTHAT; where is such a statement? I have been asked to explain my actions, and I explained them with a statement of my position, only to be told that such is neither an explanation nor a heed for others' words — if you want my opinion day after day, and my opinion remains at variance with you and others, you'll find that I continue to disagree with you and others. I fail to see why anyone is offended by statements of "I won't bother" — if I refuse to attempt to change consensus and decide not to do anything to further my own position, why should you who disagree with my position be unhappy? In summary: I performed a single action a few days ago, attempted to defend it before giving up, days later the issue was revived with a personal attack, deleted it, quickly undid the deletion after realising that it shouldn't have been performed, and have since been dragged into a dramafest. We do not punish those who perform actions and quickly revert themselves after realising that they should have done otherwise, and we do not punish an admin whose isolated action is rejected by other admins, even if he continues privately to believe that he acted properly. 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). According to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which you cited before, the problem people are those who continue editing as if consensus supported them, when it doesn't. I have quite obviously not continued editing as if consensus supported me. Let me get back to building an encyclopedia; although I disagree with it, I'll respect consensus on this matter, and you won't know that I disagree.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. -- Cirt (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4. AD 12:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside views

Outside view by Orlady

This whole episode has been unbelievably petty -- on the part of all parties. Whether or not the horse is dead yet, and regardless of who is at fault, it would be advisable to pick up the stick and back slowly away -- lest the horse come back to life and kick you again.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Orlady (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. -- Cirt (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4. AD 12:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Physchim62 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
7. this doesn't require an RfC. To go from an incident to an RfC in less than a week is being particularly petty. -Atmoz (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
8. DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - a response to this view has been made here.

Outside view by Bkonrad

The circumstances leading to this are unfortunate. As Elen of the Roads has indicated, several parties involved in various acts leading up to this were wrong in one way or another. But what I find 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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. older ≠ wiser 03:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Jafeluv (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
6. œ^™ 12:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Endorse, and extend to include that he will not continue to allege personal attacks or vandalism in the original edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Endorse. it is the improper use of tools, both against policy and against a user with whom the admin is in dispute, that is the concern here. Nyttend is clearly still of the opinion that his first usage (to revision delete four reverts and an edit summary) is within policy, and I believe he is of the opinion that his second was within policy also, but was a tactical error (see his edit summary above - Can't hurt for this to be public) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Endorse; basically what Elen said. The issue isn't the particular revision—quite frankly, that's a storm in a teacup—but the broader "I'm an admin, policies don't apply to me" attitude which seems to be being demonstrated. – iridescent 23:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
11. As I said, there is learning to be taken away for all participants in this matter, including ... Nyttend. When one acknowledges one's error, the main person to benefit is oneself, as it allows learning to take place. --John (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Troubling particularly that he demonstrated through later action that he had not understood the issues, illustrating that abiding by a policy one does not understand is not that easy. Besides which, RevDel is not to be used lightly, a fundamental point he doesn't seem to have understood either. Rd232 ^talk 02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Whwya (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Misue of tools is a very good way to look at it. If this were the only instance of this type of behavior it might be chalked up to "ok, they just made a mistake", but there is a trend of them using admin tools to further their opinion vs. policy (i.e - they firmly believe any file tagged as "self" signifies a correct license and source, even when there is no source or author listed as required by policy, so they routinely remove di-no tags. See this history, this dif, this sequence of events that proved the uploader was not the "author". Browse through some recent tag removals and look at some questionable summaries) and when they are directed to read polices their attitude is the person telling them should bugger off. Never really seen them full say "I was wrong" or "I misunderstood policy." Not saying they haven't, just saying I have not seen it, not even in this case. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
16. Saebvn (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
17. Dpmuk (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
18. Cube lurker (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
19. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:06pm • 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
20. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
21. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
22. Jonathunder (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Fastily

In my experience with Nyttend, I have found that he often acts as though the rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him. When he comes across an issue or situation he disagrees with, he is arrogant, hot-headed, rude, and unresponsive, putting on the WP:IDHT persona. The lack of communication over an improper and controversial administrative action is, among other things, testament to the latter. While this summary is in no way meant to disparage Nyttend, if he continues to deny he is at fault, action should be taken by the community to ensure a halt is put to his disruptive and tenacious editing.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Rschen7754 06:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. I cannot endorse the "he often acts as though the rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him" portion, because I can't recall having encountered him before, but in this case, he was "arrogant ... rude, and unresponsive, putting on the WP:IDHT persona" and failed to adequately address "an improper and controversial administrative action". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4. I have observed other editors have issues with Nyttend over image deletion, in which he has given the impression that his opinions count for more than the actual content of some image policies, and he has argued with people who drew the policies to his attention. He was certainly rude in the incident with SandyGeorgia.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Whwya (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
6. I understand this is about the use of RevDel but the overall feeling I have after dealing with this admin is that, yes, "he often acts as though the rules of Wikipedia do not apply to him". At one time I was willing to say it may be due to their misunderstanding of the polices - however after trying to discuss issues with them I do not feel that way and they, at times, come off with an elitist "I am an admin" attitude. What I find very ironic in all of this is that this admin removes proper tags from images and if anyone undo it, as I have done, they get a warning to not rollback them as they are an admin. And when confronted they respond to the editor they misused tools. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Without commenting on the specifics of the incident that precipitated this RFC, I can say that the behavioral problems identified in this assessment ring true with me. Within the last week I had what should have been a very minor disagreement with Nyttend over the wording of the lead section of an article. Attempts at a compromise solution were reverted by Nyttend , who repeatedly implied I was too stupid and/or ignorant to comprehend their position. They seemed to feel it was ok to keep reverting each new idea I had no matter how accommodating I tried to be to their position. The message I would like Nyttend to get from this proceeding is that adopting an attitude of condescension is just about the worst way to persuade others, and that a willingness to be flexible is essential if you are going to edit content. We had another encounter on a similar issue about two years ago, and that time we were able to resolve it to our mutual satisfaction and I didn't get all this attitude flipped at me. I don't know what changed between now and then but it would be nice if it changed back. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
8. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:06pm •

Outside view by Rschen7754

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I haven't looked too far into the situation above; though his deletes look really sketchy. But I do know of an incident where Nyttend decided to edit war over the assessment of a USRD article, assessing it contrary to our assessment guideline and refusing to budge when editors told him he was wrong. [3] What is more disturbing, however, is his accusation of "harassment": [4] It was unpleasantly shocking to discover that this user is an admin, because this is conduct that is not becoming of an admin.

Further commentary: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17#Assessment woes

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rschen7754 06:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. It is difficult to tell where the "harassment" claim originated or whether it was justified per our WP:HARASSMENT policy from the diffs above, but from reviewing the diffs at the article talk page, it does appear that Nyttend editwarred, against consensus, over !!! an article assessment, without ever discussing it on talk!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4. OK, that's similar to what I've seen him do with image deletion. The second diff (removing a further good faith attempt to explain the somewhat esoteric differences between types of stubs with the edit summary tired of the harassment) is distinctly off. There are two issues here, a lack of attention to detail, and an intransigence when an error is pointed out, and the combination has a synergy - it creates a bigger problem than two unconnected issues would. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy is full of nitpicky detail, and there will always be someone around to point out when you've got it wrong. The only thing any editor can do in those circumstances is say 'my bad, I didn't even know there was a difference.' An editor that does not pay attention to the detail, but reacts badly when the detail is drawn to their attention is going to go through many unhappy experiences. When that editor is an admin, the synergy effect is even greater because of the position of relative authority. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Whwya (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
6. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:06pm • 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Seb az86556

While I understand the basis for this RFC, I hope that, whatever the outcome, it will not be looked at as mere "nyttend-bashing". This is something all admins should pay close attention to. There's been too much of this kinda stuff recently.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. -- Cirt (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. There is no need for "Nyttend-bashing"; it was always, and remains, within his power to acknowledge and rectify misuse of tools and failure to AGF re another editor's mistake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia gives the tools to admins on trust, and it is a concern when they are misused as it can affect the trust the community has in admins in general. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Quite, and it could even in some cases be considered to be an effort to cover the admin's tracks from scrutiny. Nyttend must come to the realisation that the rules apply to him as well as to those he rules. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Absolutely. Everyone makes mistakes; as Wikipedia has seen rather spectacularly this week in another context, the problems come when people dig their heels in rather than put their hands up and admit it. – iridescent 23:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
9. I sincerely hope this is viewed as an opportunity to clarify expectations of REVDEL. It's a relatively new tool, and the boundaries of its use relatively more subject to justifiable misunderstandings than other tools. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Whwya (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Per Iridescent and Jclemens. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Agree with the comments by Iridescent and Jclemens. Also, seeing we're not "nyttend-bashing", in my experience Nyttend has shown good judgment in the area of non-free images, and his willingness to close WP:FFD discussions not merely by counting heads, but by strength of arguments is appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
14. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:06pm • 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
16. And agreeing with Iridescent. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
17. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Wehwalt

Nyttend should not have used RevDel as he did. That being said, the statement in his response that he will respect consensus on this matter and avoid similar uses of RevDel is sufficient. He is entitled to his views; what is key that he agreed that he not act on them further.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. -- Cirt (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. AD 12:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4. œ^™ 12:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Orlady (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Well said. PhilKnight (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Yep Agreeing that such a use isn't supportable per policy would be nice, but what he's done is enough. Some of the other DelRev problems noted below may be troubling but as long as such problems end here, we're good. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC) This is a good summary.
9. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:07pm • 07:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - a response to this view has been made here.

Additional outside view by Wehwalt

The tone of the conversations detailed above was unfortunate. Members of the community are reminded that the obligation under WP:ADMIN to "try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner" falls on the admin, but also falls upon the member of the community believing himself aggrieved by administrative action.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. -- Cirt (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by LessHeard vanU

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

To use Rev/Del without a request being made or even outside of strict complaince of the rules of falls under the admin remit, but to maintain that action in the face of adverse comment without providing a rationale most certainly does not. 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. Admins need to be able to suck it up.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Per WP:ADMIN, recognizing a mistake often corrects it. We all make mistakes; rectifying them is the duty of responsible editors and admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
4. If someone makes a controversial decision, they must be prepared to explain their reasoning. If the community does not support it, and the decision maker acknowledges that, then what we have is a lesson learned, and a community view clarified, and that should in most cases be the end of the matter. The problem here is caused by ploughing on regardless - even at this point, recognition and acknowledgment of the error of judgment should be sufficient. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
7. I find the language suck it up slightly unpleasant, but I support this sentiment 100%. --John (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Whwya (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
9. DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Again some reservations about the language but otherwise endorse. Dpmuk (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Cube lurker (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
14. No reservations about the language - it's absolutely true. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
15. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:07pm • 07:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
16. Racepacket (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
17. Admins make mistakes; it's inevitable. Either way, you have to take your medicine, but it's easier for everybody if you admit your mistake, learn from it, and move on. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
18. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
19. Bring honor to the mop, and all that. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Rd232

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I find this all quite amazing. I had happened upon Nyttend's templated message to Sandy on her talk page, discovered what it related to, and applied some wet fish in response. I was vaguely aware of the underlying incident, but wasn't aware of this RFCU. Some comments, then.

1. People make mistakes when they act; we must accept this, and not pretend the alternative of mistakes never being made is feasible. In striving to attain this unfeasible alternative, we merely increase mistakes arising from not acting. So the important thing is (besides avoiding precipitate action) above all to learn from mistakes, and to listen to others in judging whether we have made a mistake.
2. Of the several errors made in the original content dispute at José Sisto, I see (i) Sandy removing material sourced to a reliable source on the basis of it being unreliable; an understandable mistake, since it's called "Guampedia". (ii) Sandy's removal referenced WP:BLP, when the person is surely not alive - though there are no birth or death dates given, so again, it happens. (iii) Physchim62 reverting Sandy's removal using Twinkle's "revert vandalism" function; not good, since clearly not WP:Vandalism. Seems to have been motivated by broader context which need not detain us here. (iv) Sandy records her disagreement with iii in a null edit edit summary. The content issues are sorted out on the talk page shortly after. End of story, one would think.
3. The following day, for no particular reason I can see, Nyttend intervenes. An intervention here might have taken any number of forms, most plausibly pointing out errors made. Instead, he RevDeletes Sandy's edit summary, for which there is no basis in policy whatsoever. This was fairly swiftly pointed out by a number of people, eg here (including a fair summary of the issues in 2.). Nyttend's response at least clarifies the reason , saying it was "attacking another editor". This does not seem a fair assessment, and ignoring the edit summary it was a response to is pretty strange; this can far more plausibly be called "attacking another editor". Regardless, it doesn't fall under RevDel.
4. Despite requests to acknowledge error and demonstrate that he's understood the nature of the issue, Nyttend continues to fail to do so. Indeed, he repeats the error, using RevDel to remove a message from Sandy from his user talk page, though he at least undoes this several minutes later, albeit with the rather weak acknowledgement "can't hurt for this to be public" (which sounds almost as if he wants it public so people can see it). Compounding the mess, he then templates Sandy with an NPA message - totally inappropriate and unhelpful. It was strongly expressed personal opinion, but it wasn't really a personal attack, and even if it was, it's an astounding error of judgement in this situation for an admin to template a regular allegedly attacking them.
5. Even in his response to this RFCU Nyttend is declaring Sandy's edit summary "pointy", a reference to WP:POINT, which is to say "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", which somehow manages to be even less appropriate than "edit summary vandalism" for the edit summary in question. He says that he "continues privately to believe that he acted properly", clearly stating what he has demonstrated through his actions: he has not understood the policy, or his mistake. He presents it as an issue of opinion and consensus, which it is not. The policy is clear, and his interpretation of both this and of the situation clearly erroneous. It is well beyond time that he acknowledges this.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rd232 ^talk 02:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

   I notice re-reading in the morning that I've accidentally included Sandy's null edit in the list of errors in point 2, when in fact I don't consider it to have been an error. I probably wouldn't have bothered myself, but it was a reasonable thing to do, reasonably done. I guess this arose because it's otherwise a chronological list of actions, and the previous ones listed were errors. Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Well said. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Excellent and fair summary. I not only made a huge mistake at José Sisto; I made three (hopefully uncharacteristic) editing mistakes that day, for reasons known to the arbs and nobody else's business. We all make mistakes, and without WP:AGF, Wiki falls apart (even more so than usual :) I apologize, sincerely, and make amends when I make a mistake; no less should be expected of an admin when they make an even bigger mistake, abusing of tools entrusted to them. Unfortunately, as this has unfolded, Nyttend does not seem to acknowledge any of three policies he breached: AGF, REVDEL, and ADMIN. If anyone wants to trout or sanction me for responding to how he treated me by saying he had no "integrity, scruples, collegiality and courtesy", I can live with that-- we "elect" admins based on trust and on the assumption they have those qualities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Good summary. --John (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Whwya (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Very clear summary. I note Nyttend deleted your trout as incivil, suggesting to me a lack of "getting it" in general. As I have said in other places, it is the ploughing on regardless, not the mistake, that is the issue here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

   Nyttend subsequently clarified that "hardly civil" referred to Sandy's remark, not my post. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

   At least he wasn't describing you as incivil. I have struck the words for clarity Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

   Normally, threaded discussions aren't supposed to be placed on the RFC, but since this clarifies a statement in Nyttend's favor, I guess it should stay? I don't know how else to fix this instance, but want to remind subsequent posters about threaded discussions on RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

7. FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Cube lurker (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Hans Adler 17:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
12. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:09pm • 07:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Except that I would prefer to focus on will in future act in accord with the consensus of how the policy is to be applied rather than trying to extract an apology for an issue that is now well past its sell-by date. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by DGG

In the absence of evidence that Nyttend has done this repeatedly or consistently, it does not warrant a RfC. Trying to force someone to actually say that they have been wrong tends to be counterproductive and often hardens attitudes and prolongs interpersonal antagonism, and will always cause resentment. We can judge whether people realize their errors by seeing if they repeat them. Now, I have long thought we are generally too reluctant to call to account admins who over-extend their tools consistently, or are consistently rude or abrasive. The solution to this is to resolve to deal with the most difficult cases of those who have been ignoring policy for a long time and to the general detriment of the encyclopedia and those who work on it. The opposite of a good solution, is to proceed by seizing upon one isolated error. Yes, it was an error. It was not a bad faith error, or grossly improper COI involvement. If it repeats, it must be dealt with, & I'll be the first to say so. But every admin makes errors, and not all of them are willing to openly admit them--it would be better if they did, but as I see it, it is enough if they learn from it. If those who know the community disapproves of what they have done refrain from doing it again, that is all that need be asked for. The actions are what speak.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
2. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Orlady (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Secret ^account 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
6. -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - a response to this view has been made here.

View by Ucucha

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Nyttend has repeatedly used RevDel inappropriately:

• https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcaryan&diff=370680229&oldid=370678482&unhide=1 (log here) – Nyttend hides 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 (log here) – Nyttend hides edit summaries on both sides of the diff. I can see no reason at all to suppress the first edit summary; the second is incivil but not nearly enough to warrant suppression.

WP:REVDEL#Misuse says that "RevisionDelete was introduced for administrators in 2010. The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy. Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist in order to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries." Nyttend used RevDel to remove an unwise choice of wording between users and to remove ordinary offensive comments and incivility.

(Non-admins cannot see the suppressed material I discuss, since the edit summaries remain suppressed. I encourage Nyttend to restore them; if he does not do so, I may restore them myself.)

Administrative note: I've restored the edit summaries referenced in this view. –xeno^talk 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As proposer. Ucucha 14:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Endorse. I don't think any of the three diffs linked required revdeleting per policy. Jafeluv (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
3. None of these is justifiable. Deleting one's own edit summary infelicities is particularly egregious. Rd232 ^talk 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Endorse, and note that non-admins are seriously disadvantaged when admins abuse of policy, because we cannot see the suppressed edit summary or some of the tool info that admins can see. And that is precisely why it damages "us" when admins abuse tools, leaving the impression that we have made personal attacks or vandalized when we have not done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
5. None of these is justifiable Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
6. A serious pattern of behavior and attitude. Andy Walsh (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Again, I don't think this is intentional abuse but unintentional misuse from someone who doesn't appreciate just why the protocols around the use of this particular tool are so tightly restricted. – iridescent 16:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
8. FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Per Iridescent. --John (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
10. I agree that Nyttend has been using RevDel inappropriately, not just this time, but multiple times. Orlady (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
11. I think it's intentional misuse, and it's got to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Now I can finally see the edit summaries I feel able to endorse this. Dpmuk (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Cube lurker (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Per iridescent. Hans Adler 17:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
16. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:09pm • 07:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
17. As stated above, it's not an isolated incident, but a pattern of incorrect use. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
18. A pattern of incorrect use. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
19. per iridescent. RevDel does not get much in the way of oversight, so it is more than ordinarily important to be careful (hopefully without creating a chilling effect against legitimate use, though). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Dpmuk

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Nyttend has made a very serious error in judgement in suppressing his own edit summary (see above view). Whether the suppression of this edit was appropriate or not the action should not have been undertaken by them as they had a serious conflict of interest. It is generally accepted that administrators should only serve in that role while they have the trust of the community. It is difficult to know how it will be possible for the community to retain trust in administrators if they can hide any mistakes they make from public view. We all make mistakes and this in itself is no reason to lose trust in someone, however the attempt to hide the mistake severely harms any trust that existed as it begs the question what else may have been hidden. Although confident it was not Nyttends intention to stop review of his actions that was the result. As no explanation has been given for this deletion or for not reversing it when asked to do so here Nyttend has continued to show serious errors in judgements by not realising why it was so important for this deletion to be reversed.

[Note: This view was added so late as the revision deletion in question has only just been reversed and as a non-admin I could not view it previously].

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As proposer. Dpmuk (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Endorse-- by hiding *my* edit summary, he left the impression I had vandalized and made personal attacks, which I had not. A lesser known person would have had to live with that; the edit summary in my case was only revealed because other admins watch my talk page. It's important that lesser known editors aren't damaged by improper use of tools. Nyttend has still not acknowledged that he understands this: his response above was limited to my one edit summary, before the others came to light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Endorse. Rd232 ^talk 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Endorse. I am presuming that the edit summary was a gaffe, rather than a personal attack, but as evidenced on the talkpage, the RD tool serves a bloody great warning not to use it to hide your gaffes.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
5. FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Cube lurker (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
7. 'Tis true. Orlady (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Hans Adler 17:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
10. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:09pm • 07:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Rschen7754 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Administrators should strive to be transparent whenever possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Barts1a

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I cannot believe this user is still an administrator. The evidence presented in both the original case and outside views clearly show that this user is either deliberately abusing their powers as an admin or is starting to go mad with power. Either way I think that this user deserves to have their powers temporarily (indefinitly works too) removed to bring their ego back down to earth.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As commenter Barts1a (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
2. A bit strongly worded, but the summary gets at the main point. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
3. ^ —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:35pm • 05:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
4. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Access Denied

I can't believe that Nyttend still hasnt figured out how serious we are about RevDel misuse. he should be desyssoped.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Access Denied 00:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
2. FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.