Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias


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

Closed by agreement of RFC-initiators at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Aitias.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

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

Desired outcome
I'd like Aitias to chill out a bit and stop being so strict with granting rollback to editors, unnecessarily. I'd like him to stop with the sarcastic and aggressive comments to other editors, and perhaps take a break from the rollback page, because I'm concerned of ownership issues over it.

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


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

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIV
 * WP:TALK
 * WP:BITE
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:WHEELWAR
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:COI
 * WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 *  Majorly  talk  00:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Acalamari 01:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢
 * Frank |  talk  16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

'''re. 1.:'''
 * a.)
 * Declining a rollback request is not a technical admin action. Therefore, this does not constitute wheel warring.
 * b.)
 * I was not “beating a dead horse”. The discussion was ongoing and not anywhere near the end. Trying to prevent a proper discussion by adding resolved when nothing is resolved is inacceptable. This was the status of the discussion when Tiptoety granted. Both you and Acalamari had commented at Requests for permissions/Rollback. At that point there were exactly 3 other views of administrators: Xeno, Tiptoety and WilyD. Xeno and Tiptoety commented in favour of granting, WilyD in favour of not overturning my decision. That was not a true consensus. Also, there was absolutely no need to prevent further discussion to reach a true consensus. Removing resolved was reasonable.
 * c.)
 * No, I did not suggest that. I recommend having a look at the content of the page you were talking about. Nothing else.
 * d.)
 * The point I tried to make is that people should not revert blindly without thinking. This includes having a look at the content of the page one is reverting — this applies to user pages as well.
 * e.)
 * No, I did not. What I said was that you were telling the untruth when you were obviously telling the untruth.
 * f.)
 * I was entitled to voice my opinion as any other user. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I simply do not have to justify myself for that.
 * g.)
 * That's your opinion, you're entitled to it and I'm entitled to mine. Nothing to discuss here.
 * h.)
 * No sarcasm at all. I honestly think consensus should be reached trough discussion; votes are much worse than discussion. There was nothing wrong with mentioning this.

'''re. 2.:'''
 * It's not sarcastic. It's probably unnecessary, but it's not sarcastic.
 * It's not sarcastic. It's probably unnecessary, but it's not sarcastic.

'''re. 3.:'''
 * It is discussed elsewhere.
 * It is discussed elsewhere.

'''re. 4.:'''
 * I have reverted that revert myself. I just reverted EVula's move as I honestly thought he had not noticed that the user in question had a first RfA already.
 * I have reverted that revert myself. I just reverted EVula's move as I honestly thought he had not noticed that the user in question had a first RfA already.

'''re. 5.:'''
 * a.)
 * This was simply not edit warring — not even anything near to it. Also, I have explained the reason for having done one revert above (cf. re. 4.:).
 * b.)
 * There's nothing aggressive about the edits you named. I politely asked for explanations, nothing else. Also, I don't think EVula thought I was impolite, as again, I clearly was not.

'''re. 6.:'''
 * While the comments in question were probably not that polite and kind of stressed, saying they would be “very aggressive” is certainly exaggerated.
 * While the comments in question were probably not that polite and kind of stressed, saying they would be “very aggressive” is certainly exaggerated.

'''re. 7.:'''
 * Mind explaining how this comment was sarcastic? I can not see anything sarcastic about it at all.
 * Mind explaining how this comment was sarcastic? I can not see anything sarcastic about it at all.

'''re. 8.:'''
 * With all due respect, this is slightly ridiculous. I always use that sentence when granting rollback, I have copied it from User:Tiptoety, who also uses it, some time before. There's nothing wrong with that sentence at all.
 * With all due respect, this is slightly ridiculous. I always use that sentence when granting rollback, I have copied it from User:Tiptoety, who also uses it, some time before. There's nothing wrong with that sentence at all.

'''re. 9.:'''
 * There's nothing wrong with that comment and it's not patronising either.
 * There's nothing wrong with that comment and it's not patronising either.

'''re. 10.:'''
 * Would you please explain how this comment was sarcastic? It's not sarcastic at all.
 * Would you please explain how this comment was sarcastic? It's not sarcastic at all.

'''re. 11.:'''
 * I may recomment reading Not Now. Also, we have rules for some reason:
 * In such cases the requesting user should always be asked to consider withdrawal first.

'''re. 12.:'''
 * a.) That comment was not snide. Also, it was not off-topic — it was replying directly to a comment left by User:Malleus Fatuorum at that page.
 * b.) There was nothing wrong with me reverting that unnecessary and false comment from my own user space.

'''re. 13.:'''
 * This point has been thrashed out completely already on the talk page in question. As User:Deacon of Pndapetzim wrote below: “He wasn't merely writing in Greek, but posting a quote from a famous literary text with a reference to follow.” I have provided a link to an excellently clear article, that's nearly as good as providing a translation. Also, after I had noticed you were not going to read the article, I have provided a translation.

'''re. 14.:'''
 * This was a mistake caused by the new rollback links at the watchlist. Also, I have reverted the mistake myself one minute afterwards.

'''re. 15.:'''
 * I have corrected that mistake myself as well.

'''re. 16.:'''
 * Yet again. Reverted my revert one minute afterwards again.

'''re. 17.:'''
 * You are well aware that I simply did not know that the user was an experienced editor of the German Wikipedia when I left that comment at Iridescent's talk page. I think I have made that sufficiently clear already on the relevant talk page.

'''re. 18.:'''
 * I can just repeat my response to point 11 (cf. above). Additionally there was a blatantly clear consensus for keeping the RfA open at the talk page of the RfA in question. The closes were clearly against consensus. Also, this is not edit warring.

'''re. 19.:'''
 * Nothing wrong with that comment at all.

'''re. 20.:'''
 * No sarcasm, nothing wrong with those edits.

'''re. 21.:'''
 * Clearly no edit warring. The user in question had changed their replies — those replies were the reason for quite a lot of opposes on that RfA.

'''re. 22.:'''
 * Once again, no edit warring. One revert.

'''re. 23.:'''
 * No “forum shopping”, however the false course of action and inappropriate. I apologised sending Rjd0060 an e-mail. He replied that it was all right.

'''re. 24.:'''
 * I was the one to regrant rollback again after ABF promised to be more careful in the future. Also, Frank said that my points are reasonable even though he disagrees with them. Nothing wrong here.

'''re. 25.:'''
 * Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Nothing wrong with that oppose. I have provided a long rationale.

'''re. 26.:'''
 * There was no consensus for that change. Nothing wrong with my revert. Later consensus for another version could be reached.

'''re. 27.:'''
 * No “forum shopping”. Just wanted to be fair and get some feedback/review. Nothing wrong with that.

'''re. 28.:'''
 * This was discussed at the relevant talk page. Nothing to add.

'''re. 29.:'''
 * This is, once again, simply the untruth, Majorly. This comment was left by User:Pedro, not me. Also as User:Pedro has pointed out below, this has been dealt with per e-mail. Nothing to dicuss here.
 * This is, once again, simply the untruth, Majorly. This comment was left by User:Pedro, not me. Also as User:Pedro has pointed out below, this has been dealt with per e-mail. Nothing to dicuss here.

Conclusion:
 * Majorly's allegations are mostly entirely indefensible and they are divorced from their context. The only aim of that is to cast a poor light on me, nothing else. Most of the points raised are completely in order, especially considering the context. None of those points constitutes anything near misuse of my administrator rights, let alone abuse.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) —  Aitias   // discussion 15:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

Cheers.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- slakr  \ talk / 05:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Tan   &#124;   39  14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --Atias, whom I haven't had the pleasure of meeting too often, seems to have had genuinely accidents, as he self-reverted soon after.   Im per a t § r (Talk)  00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Deacon of Pndapetzim on Majorly's evidence
1) The rollback issue. Aitias was wrong and was too harsh, though I am no fan of distributing rollback to all and sundry. He should not have removed it after it had been granted in the absense of misuse or consensus to do so. Admins have to have more respect for each other than that, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. Calling you a liar was bad, but you did indeed (innocently I'm sure) misrepresent Aitias' position. That said, I've got problems with the following passage:
 * "Despite the clear consensus against, he still adamantly believed the user should not get rollback

Since when were wiki admins expected to think like high school cheer-leaders? Surely Aitias is entitled to argue a position independently of the views of others, and indeed this is beneficial.

2) Stressed and annoyed.

3) He can remove comments from his talk page if he wants. His back was up because Evula was behaving slighly arrogantly and Aitias was stressed. Not to excuse.

4) Fine, per WP:BRD.

5) The thing with EVula is not particularly impressive, but I won't condemn trying to rename the RfA to reflect the numbering (this would be good practice, and we have WP:BOLD for a reason). True, this isn't usually done when a user changes name, but as that is so uncommon there is a natural expectation to see the RfAs numbered after the first one. I don't think EVula's status as a bureaucrat has any bearing. It is nothing to do with adminship in any case.

6) I have found the presentation of the events described on this AfD exaggerated; looks more like both Phil and Aitias talking over each other, each not understanding the points being made. Aitias is clearly frustrated though.

7) Yes, too harsh. Note, this is the same issue as point 1), namely the rollbacking of User:Jpoelma13

8) ? Not sure I get this point. Aitias has in mind the vandalism non vandalism rule about rollback, I don't think he meant to say that you can't use it for spam and other such unconstructive editing (as such things often count as vandalism in common wiki usage).

9) Same User:Jpoelma13 issue

10) It was Rjd0060 who made the first personal remarks here. Yeah, he shouldn't be such a dick like that, but the guy's having a few rough days. Give him a break. 11) Looks more pointless in hindsight, but there's no issue here and the RfA was borderline SNOW and Aitias was entitled to revert boldness here in favor of his own perspective.

12) He can do what he likes with his own talk page. I reserve judgment about his remarks to Marjorly. You guys have issues with each other, so this kind of thing happens. It shouldn't continue to happen of course, but I doubt opening an RfC will endear you much to him. Snowballing

13) He wasn't merely writing in Greek, but posting a quote from a famous literary text with a reference to follow. Doing it was silly, and, yes, he is being combative towards you in a way that looks quite bad to outsiders and is being an asshole by trying to belittle you.

14)-16) Yep, inappropriate use of rollback

17) Meh. Normal discussion there.

18) This is a tad more concerning, as it dates back to January and the behaviour is not particularly reasonable either.

19) Rant? If an established admin thinks you're persecuting him you should probably take it more seriously than that. And if you don't, don't expect it to go away.

20)-21) Meh.

22) A revert isn't edit-warring

23) Nothing concerning

24) He's explaining himself I think, rather than "policy wonk"ing. Some people actually think like that and thus when they write about it write in good faith

25) Who cares ... he opposed an RfA, he should get desysoped?

26) Nothing to worry about.

27) "Forum shopping" is overly strong and emotive. He's only asking for a review of an action. When did that become "forum shopping"

28) Yes, over the top. And Duncanhill was annoyed for good reason.

29) Erm ... the comment in question comes from Pedro not Aitias.

In summary, looking at Majorly's evidence. 1) It consistently portrays Aitias too negatively. 2) Around it it is obvious that Aitias and Marjorly have a history of conflict. 3) Aitias probably believes that the same group of users, some of whom are clearly friends with each other, are against him and acts more aggressively because of the increased sense of threat 4) Aitias is combative and takes being overruled personally, and lacks some social skills that would be useful to him. 5) In the past few days he has been particularly worked up 6) No abuse of sysop rights (would like to hear explanations of those rollback misuses), and there's no need to remove them. 7) He has distinct views on rollback within the system, good for wikipedia though bad for him. I'm commenting only on Marjorly's evidence it should be said.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Most agree with this actually. I think I was pretty angry when filling out the evidence above, and obviously I am not the most unbiased here. Aitas' latest antics with refusal to give rollback to Jpoelma13 because he made two little mistakes (despite the fact Aitias, as shown above, makes errors just as often), despite clear consensus on AN, and the fact he removed the right from him after someone granted it, demanding consensus (you don't need consensus to grant rollback), brought me here last night. Yes, some of the stuff is portrayed quite badly, but I think it's all still worth looking at and people can make their own minds up. There is still a problem; desysopping probably isn't the answer, so I revised the "outcome" bit to something I think is more reasonable.  Majorly   talk  15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside (ish) view by Pedro
29. Yeah, if you'd done your job properly was a foolish comment made by me and not Aitias. I apologised on his talk and sent an email apology afterwards as well. Aitias was gracious enough to accept my apology. Majorly, at RFC it is imperative you attribute these things correctly.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Pedro :  Chat  08:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC) [see talk page for replies]

Further Comments

 * Majorly himself admits that he was angry when he created this RFC . This is not the best state of mind to be in when starting such a process IMO.
 * As others have pointed out a some of the diffs are taken out of context, do not show the bigger picture, or that Aitias reverted or changed his actions soon after.
 * I do not think that three diffs show much evidence of trying to resolve this "dispute" - by dispute I interpret this as being "a continued pattern of poor behaviour"
 * I do not think there is any evidence of abuse of the admin tools
 * We all get stressed. We all snipe or make comments that can be seen to be sarcastic. We all make comments later we regret. I don't see any here that are so extreme as to warrant Aitias giving up the tools Well maybe not all of us, but a lot of us.
 * I really feel it might be better if Aitias and Majorly just avoided each other.
 * Finaly, and most importantly;


 * Personally I feel stuck in the middle - I like both Majorly and Aitias and it pains me to see two editors I have interacted with so often and positively in this very negative arena.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Pedro :  Chat  16:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) [see talk page for replies]

Primarily-outside view by Juliancolton
Some, though not all, of Majorly's evidence is indeed truthful, and reflects upon the fact that Aitias needs to be more careful with the tools. Aitias generally isn't a bad editor, but it seems to me that he would avoid this kind of trouble if he took things a bit more slowly, and thought out his actions.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Sometimes, in a rare moment, Aitias and I actually agree on something! :) But I think he needs a break of some sort because he seems too stressed out at the moment to be working well.  Majorly   talk  15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't agree with all the diffs presented, but much of it represents a problem. Whether its intentional or not, Aitias can sometimes come off rather abrasive and condescending. I had a particularly unpleasant experience with him on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archives/2008/December; most of his comments came off somewhat elitist or just plain rude. I especially agree that a break from RFP would be helpful. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by SoWhy
I think this case is a bit blown out of proportions:
 * 1) That discussion seems a bit heated, I admit but I don't see it's only Aitias' fault here. But I agree that it could possibly be handled with less drama.
 * 2) To assume sarcasm here, you need to know he intended it do be sarcastic. But sarcasm does not transfer well through text, so I see no good-faith way to assume it was sarcasm from only two words.
 * 3) Well, where is the problem? Seems like he wanted to keep the discussion at EVula's talk page.
 * 4) And reverts himself afterwards, so what?
 * 5) Probably a mistake to revert EVula but I also think Aitias tried to discuss it, albeit too late.
 * 6) Sarcastic, okay, but "very aggressive" is probably a bit harsh.
 * 7) "Obviously" is a something subjective. It's possible that the user just ignored the mistaken rollback.
 * 8) So the problem is that he made a mistake in explaining rollback and telling people to use it conservatively?
 * 9) Which is the same user as in #1 above? I don't see patronizing tone in this.
 * 10) Nor was the ad hominem before. "Frequent turnovers" is not a good reason and I understand why Aitias reacted that way, although it was not needed. And since when is it bad to be bold?
 * 11) WP:CRAT clearly states that candidates should have the chance to withdraw first and closing it per NOTNOW or SNOW before allowing them this chance is more BITEy than Aitias reverting the close.
 * 12) It may have been phrased badly but it was a valid criticism of Majorly's response.
 * 13) And "This is English Wikipedia, Aitias. We speak English here." is not sarcastic? The whole "dispute" seems like a good-faith attempt at some lighter discussion that Majorly seems to have missed and Aitias has not understood this. I don't see an RFC reason here.
 * 14) Quite obvious that Aitias probably misclicked if he reverted himself a minute later.
 * 15) Another mistake he fixed afterwards, although probably one that came from using Huggle too hasty. I advise he is more careful here.
 * 16) Same as two above, seems like a misclick, it happens in Huggle
 * 17) Pointing out that de-wiki != en-wiki is something bad now? Sorry, but I understand his confusion, I would be confused as well. De-wiki does not even have non-admin rollback and frankly anyone can get the "sighter" status on de-wiki, the requirements are really low. So I see no harm at all in asking for reasons.
 * 18) See above, I don't think we can scold Aitias for following WP:CRAT.
 * 19) And saying that he disagrees with you, Majorly, is uncivil? Or why do you list that here?
 * 20) Again, valid criticism. I don't see any sarcasm or anything that warrants an RFC in this case.
 * 21) I don't see the problem, using "updated" was incorrect here as they were almost completely rewritten.
 * 22) Only reverted once, where is the edit-warring?
 * 23) I don't see a major problem here. Rjd6000 should have discussed reverting another admin's decision, even if it is against policy.
 * 24) Okay, in this case he should have warned him first, I agree.
 * 25) And with 46 opposes. This was a highly controversial RFA and he based his oppose on multiple other opposes and reasons, not only edit count. I see no problem with using adjectives to "oppose"-!votes if people think they are needed. Why Majorly thinks this is a reason for RFC is beyond me. Such opposes happen all the time and I have yet to see anyone be RFCed for it.
 * 26) "Hypocritically" is a highly biased word to use. I think his comment means that he has not seen Mr.Z-man at RFPerm before, not that he owns the page. And to insist that the page reflects common practice (which is what consensus can be) is nothing hypocritical. The only mistake here was that he reverted Mr.Z-man again, that was stupid.
 * 27) Forum-shopping? For asking for input whether his decision was correct or not? I don't see a problem here...
 * 28) Sorry, but being a long-term productive editor does not mean you can go around using edit summaries like "admins are crap". No matter who does such things, they should be warned to not do it.


 * Conclusion: In conclusion, this RFC might come from personal disagreements rather from real misuse. While Aitias did make some mistakes as I outlined above, there is no amount of them that really justifies this RFC, most diffs provided are nothing bad if objectively reviewed but valid criticism or misunderstandings or simple mistakes. The few that are concerning make me advise Aitias to be less sarcastic in this approach and more careful because, as this RFC shows, misunderstandings are quite easy.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  So Why  13:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) With the exception of a few incidents where Aitias could perhaps have been calmer or less dramatic, overall I am not seeing a major pattern of problems from the evidence presented. ~ mazca  t 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

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