Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nunh-huh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• Nunh-huh (talk • contribs • logs)

---

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

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside view 3.1 Outside view by Yanksox 3.2 Outside view by Homunq 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Nunh-huh (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) has been uncivil towards Daveydweeb and others, and misused rollback and violated WP:ASR/WP:POINT over Mock Duck. The problem with this user's incivility extends back prior to this incident. Administrators are held to higher standards and are expected to uphold policy, not break them. We all know what happens to admins who go bad. Misuse of rollback: It is clearly forbidden for admins to use rollback on good-faith edits, and such misuse of rollback in the past have resulted in cases against admins. Granted, he has since admitted that manually reverting it would have been a better solution. WP:ASR: User repeatedly adds a statement to an encyclopedia article, saying "The original AfD discussion should be linked to, if indeed it exists." This is added even before the article intro, and not even commented-out. If a regular user were to repeatedly do this he'd likely be blocked for WP:POINT, but this admin even used rollback to ensure this line stayed in place. – Chacor 13:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. [1] - incivility very clearly on this user's talk page.
2. [2] - rollback misuse (which he has since admitted could have been handled differently)
3. [3] and the above rollback diff for WP:ASR/WP:POINT.
4. [4] More incivility.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIV
2. WP:ASR
3. WP:POINT

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [5]
2. [6]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. – Chacor 13:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. – Nunh-huh's behaviour is pretty distressing to me, since my original edits were made entirely in good faith (and came with an admission of confusion to Nunh-huh, my new admin coach User:Yanksox, and the admin that deleted the page originally, User:Cyde). My subsequent remarks, made in an attempt to defuse the situation, were met with cynicism and incivility, and I'm disgusted that such behaviour could come from an administrator. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
3. – Nunh-huh's attitude surprises me more than a little. His response to the comment I made on the Mock Duck AfD was terse and borderline-civil, while his reply to my reasoning seemed aimed to deliberately misinterpret my words. I am disappointed that some administrators appear to adhere to such low standards of civility. I'm usually prepared to chalk things like this up to a bad day, but this seems to be a continuing pattern. riana_dzasta 13:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. Nothing that merits desysopping or anything nasty, but that's a silly use of rollback that is always going to cheese people off. A little more civility would also be nice. Moreschi 16:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I tried to explain to Daveydweeb why the tag he used for the page was the wrong one, but evidently failed. I'm sorry for the distress this caused him. I've already said I should have used a manual rollback. As far as I can see, there is no continuing dispute here. ""The original AfD discussion should be linked to, if indeed it exists."" was not an addition to the article, but to the tag preceding it. I take Yanksox's advice to heart, and will endeavor to improve my edit summaries and elaborations. - Nunh-huh 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Nunh-huh 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.}

[edit] Outside view by Yanksox

Nunh-huh has been acting properly in terms of speedy patrol and revisions. However, the means of doing this is a tad bit excessive and abrasive. He could use more helpful summaries and more civility/elaboration. But with that aside, he is not abusing the tools, he is using them how they are intended. Yanksox 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Yanksox 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Homunq

I have no view on the dispute itself. I do see that the dispute seems to have been exacerbated by the tone of Nunh-huh's comments as it developed. I came here from talk:woman, where I happen to be on the same side of the issue at hand as Nunh-huh and greatly appreciate their vigilance, but I have still noticed that Nunh-huh is both opinionated and non-conciliatory. Nunh-huh, you have a right to your opinions, including your opinions about the intelligence and motivations of other editors, however, given your status as an administrator I would prefer to see you make some attempt to offer an olive branch. Weasel words in articles are bad, but weasel words like "It appears to me..." and "I may be wrong but..." in discussion / edit summaries (before any occurence of a word like "troll") would be enough, on their own, to solve this whole problem as I see it (though you may find your own way of offering an olive twig).

Rather than endorse this view, which is more like unsolicited advice really, please just endorse Yanksox above.

[edit] 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.