Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Aitias

Re: Response by Aitias
Users who oppose this summary:
 * 1) First off I struck 29 from the list, so that's irrelevant here. What you've done, for the most part, is simply disagree with my interpretations of your comments, without saying how or why. Example you claim "Yeah, if you define yourself most people you're completely right" isn't sarcasm, when it very clearly is (obviously I don't define myself as most people, so there's no other way to interpret that comment other than as sarcastic). Even if it wasn't, was it at all appropriate? That isn't the only one, just an example. If you're going to defend yourself against comments, you need better than "Nothing wrong with that at all..." I explained clearly how your actions were problematic. This is another clearly rude comment, that you simply deny as being sarcasm above, but don't address its content at all: "What you really should stop, my dear fellow, are your ridiculous argumenta ad personam. Or do you want to claim something like edit warring with one edit again, eh?" I could go on...  Majorly  talk  16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I suggest you read the desired outcome for this RFC. I actually think you're a good admin for the most part. It's issues such as rollback, and your unneeded aggressive comments that need sorting out. Some time away from RFP and spending time working on articles would do you the world of good.  Majorly  talk  16:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it's appropriate to reply here, nevertheless I hope it's okay. When I started writing my response above the desired outcome was still this. Regarding the new one, I think you are right that chilling out and being a bit less stressed is indeed a good idea and I promise that I will try to do so. Also, I would agree to slow down a bit at RfR and I will try to be a bit less strict. As I wrote above, some of the comments were indeed unnecessary. I am truly sorry, Majorly, at least it was honestly never my intention to offend you (or anyone else). —  Aitias  // discussion 17:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Outside view by Pedro

 * No, Aitias said it to you in response.  Majorly  talk  15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aitias was quoting Pedro, to Pedro. Tan   &#124;   39  15:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was he quoting him? What's the point?  Majorly  talk  15:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tan is quite correct. Aitias quoted it back, in italics - and I for one think he was quite right to do so. The comment was made by me to Aitias and it was very poor and disrespectful on my part to another volunteer. I apologised, Aitias kindly accepted, end of matter. It does not seem relevant to this RFC whatsoever. Pedro : Chat  15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I obviously misread it as a sarcastic imitation of you, but you know better than me on that one. I struck it on the list. Other issues still remain, however.  Majorly  talk  15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Pedro : Chat  15:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Further Comments

 * Pedro: while I agree with most of what you said, do you not think there is at least some issue here that needs sorting out? Have a look at my desired outcome. Do you think that's unreasonable or not? This is not just about me and Aitias. I spoke to several other editors last night, who agreed with me his edits are becoming problematic (not necessarily desysop worthy, but nonetheless, a problem). I think my desired outcome, that Aitias takes a break from the rollback page, and stops the problematic comments, is perfectly reasonable.  Majorly  talk  16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As the desired outcome seems to have changed, and Aitias has agreed that some chill time is useful, maybe we can end this? On a side note, I personally feel that it is non-sensical to require defined minimum standards for tools such as AWB yet Rollback be a free-for-all. I think we need to get some input at Wikipedia talk:Rollback feature over that part. The rest of this RFC - well no big ANI sections, no editors screaming admin abuse, no entries on Jimbo's talk page (the usual not so subtle methods). Surely, in the spirit of co-operation and a common goal, if Aitias has taken away positive input from this RFC it can now be over and done with? Pedro : Chat  21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was late to this RfC, which seems to have nearly come to a close, but I added my name to the endorse section and I disagree with Aitias' characterization of our interaction (#24). Having said that, if Aitias is going to chill out a bit, that may be the step in the right direction that is needed, and perhaps we can table further discussion. Frank |  talk  16:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close
This RfC seems to have achieved its stated objectives. Congratulations to you all. Does anyone have serious objections to closing it now? --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above - none whatsoever. Pedro : Chat  16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections here. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think people have calmed down and taken a step back after what happened the other day. If everyone's now willing to remain calm, learn from the incident, and move on, then I say yes to closing this. I only hope that friendships that existed haven't been destroyed out of a heated dispute. Acalamari 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied that a favorable result has been achieved, and I endorse closure at this time as well. Frank  |  talk  19:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think everything that needs to happen has happened. I certainly can't see any great profit from continuing this. :) ~ mazca  t 20:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine for me, if he has promised to learn from the issues raised.  Majorly  talk  22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)