Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rd232 (de-adminship)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Withdrawn by nominator and so closed --Herby talk thyme 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232

Vote

Rd232 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a request for de-adminship of Rd232. My first experience with Rd232 was filled with nasty sarcasm and hostility, showing a temperament that is not right. Recently, he has heavily responded to ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and hidden a failed adminship request then proceeded to use hostile and intimidating language to bully others while using tools while involved. This is not unique for him but status quo. On en.wiki, Rd232 was said by ArbCom to have used administrator tools while involved.

It began with Rd232 referring to the wikipedia Clean Start policy and claiming that once someone performs a clean start that they cannot be identified as to their past accounts. The policy clearly says this is wrong ("Clean start does not mean the two accounts will not be connected, and a user who uses clean start to resume old habits of editing may well be identified as such and seen as trying to evade scrutiny").

When evidence was pointed out of abuse of sock puppetry by Rd232's friend of the person jumping from account to account to hide various past edits, he RevDel the page against the wishes of the community and while involved (he previous did the same here without a legitimate reason as the clean start policy does not apply and the user in question has their real life identity publicly disclosed). He then used the Clean Start policy as a defense even though it was pointed out such was inappropriate. He then blocked Delicious Carbuncle under the same mistaken theory, even though he was told not only was Clean Start not Commons policy but that his view of it was opposite of what the policy says. This long discussion shows a lot of hostility by Rd232 and makes him clearly involved. He is pushing a minority point of view and using his admin rights to further this.

Rd232 lacks the appropriate attitude to be an admin on Commons. He abuses ops while involved and he is very hostile and nasty to others. There are other situations and cases that I am sure other people will bring up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • For clarity and as done in previous de-adminship requests, please vote with:
    •  Remove — {{vd|remove}} — You want that Rd232 to be detached from the sysop- user group.
    •  Keep — {{vk}} — Rd232 should remain in the sysop- user group.

Response by Rd232

Well it seems that Ottava's disregard of due process on desysopping (see mattbuck's quoting of policy in the discussion section) will have to be considered by a closing bureaucrat, so I'd better say something.

I do not intend to make a detailed response to Ottava's statement above, because I have much, much better things to do with my time than another round of correcting Ottava's statements. Example: the claim that Fae is my "friend", even though I've had zero prior relationship. The claim that I'm "involved", which there is no basis for. All the stuff about my reference to en:WP:Clean start, which I don't even know where to begin in disentangling what I actually said and what Ottava claims. At least Ottava removed the incorrect statement that I'd voted in support on Fae's RFA, after I pointed it out...

That said, I want to emphasise that I'm very open to questions about my actions - as an admin should be. If anyone has any questions (including about details in Ottava's statement above), feel free to ask - but please carefully consider potential privacy issues, and use email if necessary. If appropriate, I will summarise responses to questions here. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Since Ottava's claims in the opening statement will now stay in this little corner of Commons forever, I want to add a small clarification of the Arbcom issue mentioned so briefly and prejudicially. (i) the finding passed 5 to 1, with 5 abstentions (a state of affairs which led Arbcom to change its rules about votecounting); (ii) the finding relates a to a single act, the 3-day block of an editor who was about to be indefinitely banned - and the block itself was widely agreed to be highly necessary. I made the block when the case appeared over, with no finding against me passing at the time. (iii) the "involvement" arose primarily from being a party to the same case as the blocked editor, in a case which was about the incivil behaviour of the blocked editor, and I was a party because of recent interactions with him relating to him criticising some prior admin actions of mine. (iv) I acknowledged the misjudgement in executing the block myself, and would have run for a reconfirmation RFA (partly because it had been 5 years since my RFA), had I not decided to retire around then due to RL concerns, and therefore resigned adminship instead. That is all. Rd232 (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Remove - for abusing just about every aspect of admin rights besides page protections and for having an attitude that is completely at odds with Commons and how admin are supposed to act. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Whilst I believe that Rd232 has made some dodgy decisions/actions in this whole Fae debacle, most of which I disagree with, I also believe that he has done so with the best of motives in what is/was a difficult situation. From what I've seen of Rd's responses to Ottava the worst that could be said is at worst they were a bit snarky. I like snarky. In any case one has to have the patience of a saint dealing with Ottava and it can be quite understandable to lose one's temper with him. I believe Rd has maintained decorum in spite of Ottava's continual harping on and on. In general Rd is a good admin and doesn't deserve de-sysoping. Whereas Ottava needs his arse kicking for bringing this vindictive de-sysop request. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply question - do admin on Commons have the right to rely on a bad interpretation of another project's policy and use that to justify both hiding comments and blocking users? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)][reply]
Put it another way, where does it say that they don't have the right? BTW, I notice that you didn't mention that Delicious Carbuncle was unblocked by R|d about 4hrs later after discussion with DC, I'd say that sounds like a good admin decision, and a naughty OR for not mentioning it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Meta, actually. The Rev Del tool is highly regulated in its appropriate use. And the time I posted the block he was still blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please post the link on meta that supports your assertion. The bits I found just leave it up to the admin's discretion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[5] The tool being used is RevDel, which has been granted to more than just oversighters now. The same ideas would apply. Background on it can be found discussing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still valid: RevDel ≠ Oversight. Oversighted material is hidden for admins. -- RE rillke questions? 19:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the subsection, it is clearly labelled RevDel. It was part of the Oversight policy because it was originally part of the Oversight tool before being extended to admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ottava, but once again you bark up the wrong tree. Oversight is now deprecated to the Suppression extension, not RevDel. There is no set down policy for RevDel and as all Admins can use RevDel I can only assume that it comes under the usual remit for Admins, ie their own descretion, and rightly or wrongly Rd was attempting to hide personal information. That is one of the first rules of Oversight (along with 'There is no Oversight' presumably?). So what's your next shot? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That policy makes it clear that RevDel replaced the suppression and describes that. It does not say only Oversighters can use it but says how anyone with access to the tool can use it. The Meta RevDel policy is at the link. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry, the Oversight policy has not been re-written to take into account the change to RevDel. The only references to RevDel are the developer related sections on media-wiki. There are several differences between RevDel and Oversight, so please don't say that the Oversight policy covers RevDel as it doesn't, not until those differences are covered too. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This software is called RevisionDelete and has mostly replaced the old Oversight extension by now." The policy on Meta deals with both. Don't obfuscate about something you weren't involved in and don't know about. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight policy applies to oversighters; the policy on meta mentions neither revdel nor admins, and the same is true for Commons:Oversight. If you genuinely think the meta oversight policy is intended to apply to revdel by admins, then please head to meta sharpish and test that theory by amending (or proposing amendment to) the meta oversight policy. No? Didn't think so. Rd232 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"neither revdel nor admins" I already quoted where it does mention it. It is impossible to say it doesn't. The four uses on the Oversight page are the same four uses in the drop down menu. There is a reason for that. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who was it said that the definition of madness was to do the same thing over and over again and then expect a different result? You can repeat yourself as much as you like, it doesn't mean you are right. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, why did Rd232's own proposal for a RevDel policy here happen to have the exact same four rules of when to use that I just happened to point out by linking to the Meta policy? Its because the rules are built into the interface for a very specific reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) 
Because it's a draft and all drafts have to start somewhere, but it does not mean that is where they end up. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You stated last time he was being inappropriately sarcastic. Why is it that he appears both? I was involved before he was. How can I be harassing him when he is the one who appears and abuses adminship? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tautology: "how can my claims not be justified if they're justified?". Cheers, Nemo 17:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where I have ever used sarcasm to be honest as I tend not to ever use it (just like I don't cuss). Other people have also pointed out his sarcasm wasn't good at the link. This isn't about me but about him. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The request states "Rd232's friend" implicitly in relation to me. Raising this request based on unfounded and untrue conspiracy theories is disruptive and destructive. --Fæ (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he isn't a friend of yours, he sure put his neck on the line and overstepped his authority many times on your behalf. You must be quite lucky then to have someone willing to go that far on your behalf. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call being blatantly tag-teamed and intimidated by threats "lucky". --Fæ (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I assume you are saying the actions by Rd232 would make me not lucky based on the above statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise, Ottava, that with regards to the revdels I was following user:Romaine's example, after reviewing the issues and concluding that he was right? Everything else flowed inexorably from that view. It was just 1 (one) decision, rigorously applied. I see too that you haven't bothered to acknowledge that I did the same for you last night, following PeterSymonds' prior revdel of what may be your name elsewhere. Rd232 (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" I was following user:Romaine's example" Except that user Romaine's example had multiple people say there was no justification for its use - NW, Alison, etc. all said that. You were part of the conversation and should have seen it. PeterSymonds's revdel and the one from last night were actual cases where RevDel is supposed to be used - actual outing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a coincidence. Those concerns are from 2 months ago. Intimidation and abuse of ops are some of the most harmful things to the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does a block by a person who was given adminship without an election and without any consensus (and a proven track record of real life stalking and harassment of me) have anything to do with Commons? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To whom are you referring? And why? 'Tis a bit of a non sequitor eh? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was plenty of prior discussion regarding desysopping Rd232 for a while and there is precedence for moving to desysop when there is continuing blatant abuse. For example. The key word is "may" and to make sure that there was legitimate concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, that policy appears to exist to deter frivolous requests. I'd say a prima facie case has been made (meaning the bare minimum of evidence to prove it's not frivolous has been achieved) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing Ottava has demonstrated (again) is that his reality is different than everyone else's. At least he took out the that claim I voted in the Fae RFA, but there's plenty more error and misrepresentation in the opening statement. Rd232 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be frivolous, but it certainly seems to be vindictive and served with a great bucketful of bad faith. My recommendation is that this RfC be closed and Ottava read the riot act for trolling and harassment. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"this RfC" - sadly, we don't have RFC on Commons. I did propose importing RFCU (Commons:VPR#Requests_for_comment.2FUser_conduct) and might get round to implementing it at some point, since there seems enough support. Ironically (perhaps) an RFCU would be an excellent way of showing there's enough community support for a desysop request. Rd232 (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used it as a lazy way of description this waste of time. Everyone knows what an RfC is, and although it isn't offically one, it is one to all intents and purposes. I don't know about you but I'm buggered if I'm going to write "Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rd232 (de-adminship)" every time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right, it's the only shorthand available. "De-RFA"? "RFDA"? Meh. Rd232 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual heading for such pages

Might I ask that folk treat Commons Cus with a little more respect on this page. they are among the most experienced Cus on Foundation projects and puppetry on Commons will not be looked on with anything other than disdain but us and the community who elected us. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 21:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's disrespecting checkusers?, I can't see anyone doing so. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folk creating puppet accounts... --Herby talk thyme 21:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the master anyone we know? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per this, Ottava is withdrawing this nomination, and I am closing it off as such so that a crat can do the final bits and pieces on it. russavia (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rd232_(de-adminship)&oldid=64821844"