Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hentzer

Certification overdue
This RFC is still not certified. If this is not done in the near future the page may be sumarrily deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
I would suggest leaving a note on the user's talk page in Portuguese to eliminate any language issue as the root of this user's conduct. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * may be an idea. any Portuguese speakers around? rather than google translate. LibStar (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable idea. It raises a question though in my mind of why Hentzer is working on the English version of Wikipedia if his mastery of the language is so limited that he can't write english edit summaries or respond to talk page comments? Perhaps the Portugese version would be better, or if he wants to improve his English, the Simple English version?Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

An actual concern, maybe
Henzer appears to have created some copyvios. See the history of ADI 4277 and ADPF 132. But that was many months ago. Unless there's a pattern, it's not worth discussing it further. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

whilst some might not agree with this RFC
Why don't we hear from Hentzer? There may be an explanation for his/her refusal to engage with others? LibStar (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is because you are trying to force him to do something he is not actually required to do. Since RFCs can only be resolved by voluntary agreement, his lack of participation would be another indication that he is not interested in altering his behavior to meet your requests, which you have actually stated more like demands. If he doesn't want to participate here, he doesn't have to, just like he doesn't have to use edit summaries if he doesn't want to, and he doesn't have to keep messages he has read on his talk page if he doesn't want to. So, this really doesn't have much of a chance of changing anything since you can't force him to do any of those things and it seems fairly obvious that he is not interested in being pushed into conformity. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Beetlebrox, that is your view. Do you think it is good for WP if people just ignore others? What purpose do user talk pages serve then? continually ignoring others is hardly collaborative. If many people contacted you on the same issue would you ignore them all? I think not. We are trying to get voluntary cooperation here, isn't that the right thing to do? LibStar (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only problem this RFC appears to be trying to solve is with Hentzer's use of edit summaries. If he was also ignoring important messages related to more substantive issues then you would have point. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, we're like a week in and the only position achieving any support is the one that suggests this RFC is a pointless waste of time. I'd be interested to hear from the certifiers as to whether or not they wish to continue or go for an early close given the utter lack of support for. their position. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Beetlebrox, you've prejudged this RFC and already had an outcome in concrete from the beginning rather than approach it as an opportunity to address Hentzer.. I'd like to see Hentzer actually respond, of course he may or may not which might go to show that you can ignore a RFC and continue bad habits. Hardly what we want on WP. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, could you take the time to actually use my corect name? It's not that big of a deal which is why I ignored it the first time, but really, it suggests the same lack of attention to detail that is has been an underlying problem with this whole RFC from day one. And that brings us right to the other point, which you obviously missed entirely: Endorsements keep getting added to Hammersoft's statement while literally nobody has expressed agreement with the position that we can or should try to force Hentzer ointo doing something he is clearly not interested in doing. His lack of participation here is yet another clear indicator that he is not interested in conforming to your demands. This isn't about me, it's about Hentzer, and the obvious consensus at this point is that while it would be nice if he did things the way you guys want him to he is explicitly not required to do so and there is no mechanism or desire from the community to force him to. Whatever my attitude coming into this was, it should be clear to anyone looking at this RFC that the premise it is based on has been rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * apologies about the name, it was the autocorrect on my computer. From the outset even before you deleted it for lack of certification you had a preconceived outcome, so the "not about me" is irrelevant.  I came here looking for some sort of voluntary cooperation from Hentzer not a sanction. That is the nature of the RFC.   Or at the least some explanation for his/her actions. His/her editing style has made it extremely difficult to work on the same articles. I'm sure Hentzer is reading this and thinking let's continue bad  practices and completely ignore reasonable  requests for dialogue. It makes a mockery of why we even have discussion in WP. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The deletion was purely a procedural administrative action, although I did advise against restoring it because of the very problems identified by Hammersoft, I did so as soon as I was assured it would be properly certified. But whatever, if you don't want to admit what is screamingly obvious to everyone else I won't keep trying to explain it, we can just agree to disagree on this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand it was procedural but you made comments at the time giving a preconceived opinion of its outcome, your ongoing edit summaries (ironic that you use them) give insight on this whole issue. Yes it's screamingly obvious that Hentzer will feel rewarded and continue ignoring others to make life difficult for other editors. But hey that's what WP is all about, making it difficult for others?? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to say something here. I don't have any problem with the consensus here, as I stated at the beginning of the WQA, I wasn't sure any actions could really be taken against Hentzer. I'm glad that was clarified. However, Beeblebrox's characterization of Hentzer's refusal to participate here, in the WQA, or on his talk page as being due to LibStar trying to "hound" Hentzer or "force" him to do something is entirely inaccurate. Henter's behavior has been consistently antisocial to plenty of people, before and after LibStar's first communication with him, including posting "F*CK YOU" on Walter Görlitz'stalk page merely because Walter Gorlitz notified Hentzer that other people had tagged pictures Hentzer had posted for copyvio. This RFC has established that it is Hentzer's right to be a misanthrope, and he was before LibStar got involved, he would have been no matter how nicely LibStar had tried to engage him. Beeblebrox's comments from the very beginning with his use of the word "disgusted" and continuing on this talk page (eg, calling the whole thing a "pointless waste of time") seem to indicate an emotional involvement and clouded objectivity here.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also find Beeblebrox's comment below, "I don't know why the certifiers of this RFC are having such a hard time comprehending this extremely simple premise" to be unnecessary and uncivil. Since Gerard and I haven't been arguing against the prevailing consensus that emerged here, Beeblebrox's lumping us all together as "the certifiers" is an obvious attempt to get a dig in against LibStar while trying to get away without singling him out while doing so. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I probably should not have suggested and endorsed a "request for comment." I intended it to be simply that -- "hey this guy never does edit summaries, is that cool or what?" And a community response of "as long as his edits aren't a problem, just let it go" was an outcome I thought might be likely. (I knew that a post on the "shark tank" that ANI currently is would not be a good idea.) As Mmyers and LibStar made a good faith attempt at WP:DR -- rather than edit warring or personal attacks or other poor responses that are frequent on Wikipedia, I believe they deserved more of a response than "you're shit out of luck" on WQA. I can easily accept the consensus that edit summaries are not required -- however I am disappointed in the lack of good faith and hostility they have received here. Nobody Ent 15:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Acouple of quick replies:
 * I don't believe anyone at any time said or suggested that any of you are not acting in good faith. Many people have stated that you are just plain wrong, that's not the same thing as accusing you of acting in bad faith
 * I said I was disgusted by that post because I was. It contains an open threat of "escalation" if Hentzer doesn't do what you guys want him to do. Don't request comment if you don't want honest opinions
 * The arbcom link I mention below was not added by LibStar, it was added by NobodyEnt, hence my comment about "the certifiers." It was not an attempt to single LibStar out, it was intended as what it is, a statement about the basis of the certification of this dispute against all reasonable advice that had come before.
 * I find it amusing that it is suggested that iI should have been able to figure out what you were thinking based on your lack of active participation here while at the very same time rejecting the assertion that we do the same with Hentzer.
 * When you open any form of dispute resolution, there is a strong chance it will bring close scrutiny on all editors involved and their actions related to the dispute. This is explicitly stated at the page detailing how to open this process. I can assure I am not emotionally involved here, I just have a very blunt, direct style of communication. I don't lie, and I say what I think. I think this is pointless, and it has proven to be exactly that. You guys seem to feel that me telling you before we started that this was a pointless waste of time is what has led to it being one. I doubt most of the other participants even saw that discussion, yet the only view added takes essentially the same position as has been endorsed by several others. Other than again suggesting that this be closed now as consensus is abundantly clear that's all I have to say on these matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody Ent didn't say you were accusing us of bad faith, he was saying that you weren't showing good faith. Two different things. And, though I am going out on a limb, I will venture to say that Nobody Ent was talking about lack of good faith in the more casual vernacular sense rather than wikipedia policy sense.
 * Alright, you were saying you were disgusted just because you were "being honest." I was simply and honestly saying that I didn't think the way you expressed that was appropriate. Don't use strong wording if you don't want honest opinions about that wording. Or better yet, just don't use strong wording. Wikipedia's civility guidelines stress the limitations of the written word and how they can be misinterpreted, and direct us to bear that in mind when writing on talk pages. That means applying a little tact. You may recognize that "tact" has the same root word as "tacit", which means "leaving things unsaid." If you felt "disgusted", that's your right, but maybe you didn't need to put that on the talk page, in order to keep things as civil as possible. As an administrator, you should know this, should exemplify the highest standard of this. Instead, you are just saying you have a "very blunt, direct style of communication", and everyone should just take that and leave it. You didn't like that LibStar used verbage that was a threat of escalation - I imagine you didn't like him threatening to escalate things procedurally because it might also escalate things emotionally, but ironically you responded to it with a word choice that was sure to escalate things emotionally.
 * Okay, I will retract that you were trying to single out LibStar on the arbcom comment, but that still doesn't justify the comment. Nobody Ent added the arbcom link dispassionately and without comment, just fleshing out the RFC, providing more information. Nothing whatsoever wrong with that, and for you to respond with him or anyone else "having a hard time comprehending a very simple premise" is unnecessarily condescending, and that is compounded by it being an unnecessarily argumentative response to someone simply adding a link without trying to overargue a position. but I guess that's just more of your "very blunt" style of communication.
 * Since I am the one who has not been actively participating in this RFC, I assume that comment was directed largely at me, and it is entirely baseless. Nowhere did I suggest that you should have been able to figure out what I was thinking. Nor have I rejected the idea that you should have been able to figure out what Hentzer was thinking. I merely said your hypothesis of what Hentzer is thinking (ie that he just doesn't want to respond because LibStar is being heavy-handed) doesn't fit with his pattern of behavior that has been going on before LibStar ever tried to talk to him about his lack of edit summary.
 * I don't have any problem with you expressing that you thought LibStar could have handled things with Hentzer differently. I didn't think he needed to add the comments he did to Hentzer's talk page once the WQA discussion had started. It was the way you expressed it that was wrong. Ironically, the way you were telling LibStar he could have handled things better could have been handled better. And no one is saying that you declaring this RFC pointless made it so, we are saying that you shouldn't have declared it so, even if you thought so. It serves no purpose, and just inflames things. Hammersoft was able to take the same position as you without making such comments, by just laying out a dispassionate and polite argument. His calm, fair-minded tone of writing was as persuasive as his arguments themselves, even to a certifier like me. The only thing your embellishments did was call into question your objectivity and credibility. Again, it is about tact and keeping things civil, and being effective as a dispute mediator by appearing objective and neutral. Just saying that you have a "very blunt, direct style of communication" and expecting everyone to just accept that doesn't cut it, especially not when you are an administrator weighing in on a communication breakdown between editors. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I can't say I plan on reading this giant wall of text you have just posted. If my actions so offend you that you feel the need to go on about them at such length then maybe you should open Requests for comment/Beeblebrox. As this talk page grows longer it makes this into an ever larger waste of time as the discussion moves farther and farther away from the actual topic. Asa such I will not be commenting here again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Huhnh. I merely address your post point-by-point and you call it a "wall of text" (which makes you similarly structured post I was replying to what? Yeah.) and simultaneously, by using that essay that implicitly accuses me of attempting to be "disruptive" and "shut down communication", you violate WP:AGF. None of this is surprising as you have been disrespectful of people's opinions in this discussion from the start. You haven't violated the "letter of the law" and so I have no interest in taking out an RFC on you, though an administrator who utterly lacks tact and has such a fragile ego as to not even be able to handle some constructive criticism about his communication style is a lousy admin and it probably would be better for the project if you were desysopped. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Irony is, had the RFC simply been opened, Hammersoft's comment made and endorsed by the 8 editors, time period elapsed, and closed by an admin it wouldn't have taken nearly so much time. Beeblebrox's statements about waste of time worked toward a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't get the concern with "waste of time" -- my time is mine to waste as I please (and long as I follow policy), and if other editors don't wish to waste theirs they don't have to. Nobody Ent 23:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom link just added to the case
Does nothing to strengthen the argument of the certifiers. That case pertained to an administrator who was not explaining any of their actions sufficiently, even when those actions were very controversial. That is obviously not the same thing as a user who is making perfectly fine edits and not using summaries. Further, it quite clearly says it is expected. Nowhere does it say required. I don't know why the certifiers of this RFC are having such a hard time comprehending this extremely simple premise. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)