Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Omegatron

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, 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: 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Please note : This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:


 * protecting and unprotecting pages
 * deleting and undeleting pages
 * blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Requests for comment/Example user.



Statement of the dispute
Omegatron has inappropriately used admin tools (specifically undelete, page protection) in a dispute about a series of articles to which Omegatron is a significant contributor. The articles affected include:

Specifically, Omegatron, an involved editor, removed deletedarticle from Aquygen and Denny Klein, replacing them with redirects to oxyhydrogen, undeleted HHO gas, which has been deleted now by four separate AfDs and reviewed several times.

Note that it is quite possible the actions were correct, in that there may be a need to restore history for GFDL if text was merged; this is not relevant because Omegatron gives the strong appearance of misusing tools in a content dispute. An unambiguous fix for GFDL should have been noted as such, and should ideally have been left to another admin. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Omegatron believes this is "harassment" after AfD / DRV "endorsed" his position. AfD deleted the article he undeleted, DRV endorsed its remaining deleted.  It is currently a redirect.  It is hard to see how this amounts to an endorsement, and it is also quite worrying that he still sees nothing wrong with undeleting a multiply deleted and endorsed article to which he was a significant contributor. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome
Omagatron to give an undertaking not to use admin tools in respect of articles where he is strongly vested.

Powers misused

 * Protection (log):
 * Aquygen
 * Denny Klein


 * Deletion (log):
 * HHO gas (undeletion)
 * Aquygen
 * Denny Klein


 * Blocking (log):
 * {list user or users blocked}

Applicable policies

 * Protection policy
 * Protecting pages while in a content dispute, no extenuating circumstances (e.g. not WP:BLP)


 * Deletion policy
 * Undeletion and deletion of articles where Omegatron is vested.


 * Blocking policy
 * {explain violation of blocking policy here}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive91#Omegatron
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive92#When_can_AfDs_be_closed_against_consensus.3F
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 June 7
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12
 * User_talk:Omegatron

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Guy (Help!) 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Eliminator JR Talk  09:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * --Tbeatty 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )
 * — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Shell babelfish 01:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response
As explained on my talk page [and the Administrators' noticeboard]:


 * I was asked to unsalt the redirects from HHO Gas and related articles, which I did. I left them as protected redirects so that they couldn't be recreated as articles, per past AfDs.
 * Creating redirects for "Other names, pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms" is completely normal and usually uncontroversial. (Aquygen is a synonym for HHO gas.  Denny Klein is the CEO of the company that promotes it.)
 * I asked EliminatorJR if there was something wrong with them. I would gladly re-delete them if there were a reason that redirects shouldn't exist, but no reason was presented.
 * Tbeatty then pointed out that it could be seen as advertisement. I reminded him that I am not affiliated with the company (as anyone can see from my contributions criticizing the company and my fighting to keep an article debunking their bogus claims).  Redirects from alternative names are not usually considered advertisement.
 * I asked for a third-party opinion (from someone not involved in the AfD).

I don't see why this was brought up except to continue harassing me after the outcome of the AfD/DRV supported my position. — Omegatron 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As for my undeletion (which we've already discussed):
 * Deletion policy states that an admin can undo a deletion action immediately if he thinks it is clearly out of process. Although my involvement with the page might arouse suspicion, I've explained my motives on the deleting admin's talk page: I logged in, saw that the AfD was still open (or had been re-opened), and saw his comment that he wasn't going to undelete the articles, so I took it upon myself.  Speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial cases.  If another admin disagrees with the speedy, it's automatically controversial, and needs to go through a normal AfD.  This speedy was based on WP:CSD G4 and G11, but several people pointed out that these didn't apply; the article can't be blatant advertising if it contains significant criticism, and the last DRV specifically stated that the article could be recreated.
 * I should have talked to him before undeleting, and I've freely admitted that this was a mistake and apologized. — Omegatron 06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

''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.''

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

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) I can't see any abuse happening here. Catchpole 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) The way, the truth, and the light 19:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) ATren 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Sigh. Femto 12:01, 24 June 2007 (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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

From, this article has had questions about improper AfD close/DRV opening, etc. where Omegatron acted (possibly with a different motive) to act in a way that unscrambled a difficult situation. Probably not the smartest move to keep acting with Admin tools in an article/subject that one has been intimately connected with in editing/AfD discussion/etc. But problematic-to-the-drama-its-been-given? Not really. Maybe it's time to leave things as they were (articles salted/protected/etc.,) but also for all Admins involved to step back and let other disinterested Admins step in. Certainly not sanction-worthy.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1)   Laughing Vulcan  14:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  bibliomaniac  1 5  BUY NOW! 19:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Legitimate RfC, but not sanction worthy. Addhoc 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems that Omegatron himself has endorsed this view as he has acknowledged making several mistakes.  Seems unlikely to happen again. --JayHenry 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) This seems a fair summary.  It is, I would observe, consistent with Omegatron's response supra, that it is quite possible that the the community does not view the summary undeletion of a speedied article as wheel warring or otherwise as an improper use of administrative tools; it is essentially an extension of BRD, consistent with the idea that speedy deletion is appropriate only for those cases that can reasonably be expected to be uncontroversial/that are on all fours with CSD as strictly construed.  The latter observation is not entirely relevant here in view of the specific circumstances&mdash;acting qua admin where one has been involved qua editor is always wrong, as is acting, without discussion, contrary to a well-defined previous consensus (whether that actually happened here is obviously a matter of interpretation)&mdash;but it goes, at the very least, to the proposition that Omegatron's behavior isn't nearly as pernicious as might have been the converse (viz., the speedy deletion or redirection of an article that had survived multiple AfDs by a not uninvolved editor, a problem by which we have been beset of late). (Yes, this is simply an endorsement of this Laughing's outside view and not a separate view, its considerable length notwithstanding.)  Joe 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) In as much as Omegatron appears now to accept that using tools in this case was an error of judgement, I would suggest that the desired outcome has been achieved and we can probably leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Fair enough. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Per JzG above, and acknowledging that my speedy deletion did more harm than good. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Let's just leave this matter closed with the establishment of the current status quo. — Kurykh  22:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Agreed.  Eliminator JR  Talk  00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Agreed.  The only thing left is to speedy Talk:HHO gas for G8.  It is still being used as a discussion for a non-existent article.  Move discussion to Talk:Oxyhydrogen  --Tbeatty 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.