User

Hemanshu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

MBisanz points out this. Huh. It seems to suggest Hemanshu is aware of the concerns but is not responding to them.

So... does that mean we are being trolled? He is pathologically shy? Has problems using talk pages??? I'm very confused, and almost inclined to wash my hands of the whole thing.

It's frustrating, because I don't have a big problem with Hemanshu's edits per se. I think it is sometimes appropriate to wikify dates, and I'm not sure he is always doing it wrong. But there are legitimate concerns and he won't discuss them, which undermines WP:CONSENSUS. I hate to make a federal case out of a few questionable wikilinks... but geez, if he'd just comment about it!

"Do you expect me to talk?"

"No, Mr. Hemanshu, I expect you to be blocked!" heh.... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Nichalp's and Arthur Rubin's comments at his talk page, it appears Hemanshu is still making poor edits and failing to communicate about them. Hemanshu's userpage states he is from India and he is a crat on the Hindi wiki. Nichalp, could you write a note to Hemanshu in Hindi summarizing our concerns? If you could post it to his talk page and email it to him, coming from a fellow Indian crat, maybe it would do something. In the absence of that doing anything, I propose a 24 hour block. MBisanz ^talk 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also contacted the other 2 crats at Hindi wikipedia to see if they can assist in any way. MBisanz ^talk 12:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that would be helpful. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Years would make it clear that the month randomization changes he makes are style violations, that might also be helpful. We only have my comment and two "isn't that obvious" rejoinders on the talk page. It's clear that he's going against consensus (at least against WP:YEAR consenus); if it were clear (and explained) that he's going against specific guidelines, as well.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think writing a message in Hindi, or for that matter (Marathi or Gujarati) would do any good. He has communicated with me in the distant past [1], [2], [3], and was the first to award me with a barnstar. So, its not a language barrier we have here, rather, something else that is difficult to explain. I've gone through his contributions on hi: and mr: , and he has just stopped using the talk pages there and here on en since 2005 for any sort of discussion. See this old page if you need additional contact information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Nichalp, it's really not necessary. He speaks English well enough, he just doesn't want to communicate about the issue apparently. I have to partially agree with him that this has been blown way out of proportion. How about do the opposite? Establish specific consensus for how the articles/edits should look, explain that, and if he continues to edit against the consensus then explain that he'll be blocked. That avoids all the drama and solves the problem. Of course it's better if editors communicate, but if they don't want to, don't make a federal case out of it, just decide if you want the edits to continue or not, and if not take care of that. Very simple. While Hemanshu's edits have been against consensus, the response has been unnecessarily overblown to the point of needlessly embarrassing the guy. - Taxman ^Talk 13:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has admitted to mistakes in the past, so why do harmless queries result in no response this time? Continuously reverting his edits is not a permanent solution. We have explored the option of RFC, but we are yet to see any concrete action. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I even heard of this circumstance, editors had been leaving requests and notes at his page for over a year asking him about edits. But for the extreme length of time without interaction, I would have never bother to file any of this "paperwork". MBisanz ^talk 14:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure why, but it's clear he doesn't want to. So the solution is to block him if the edits aren't wanted. It's a simple technical restriction that prevents unwanted changes to the wiki, and can be easily reversed. It seems that the choice has been made to avoid blocking him at all costs and that has included many very harshly worded warnings on his talk page, a request for arbitration, at least one discussion on the admin noticeboards, this RFC, and asking about him to other editors at other projects he is involved at or has been involved at in the distant past. All of it could have been handled in one place and most of that should have been avoided. Everyone deserves a little dignity and this has gone way too far. - Taxman ^Talk 14:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman, making incorrect MoS changes is one thing, but after editors repeatedly him that his edits are not in line with today's standards, the least that could be expected out of him is to cease repeating those changes. It's fine if he does not want to discuss it. But going on to revert an editor (me) is squarely out of line. Besides, he used the admin rollback privileges, which is solely meant to combat vandalism. I think he's asking for a block. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But again, blocking is not such the problem it's been made out to be. I had said before we should simply decide if there is consensus for a block and if so, do so. That's simple, reversible, and solves the problem with the minimum fuss. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's going to sit out the block, and continue to do so. Blocking will not be effective. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone block him already. Reverting Nichalp, using admin rollback, is out of line. See this ArbCom principle from earlier this year. If this kind of behavior continues, it will go to ArbCom, since he's clearly not interested in co-operating on this RFC. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that editors have commented here and on Hemanshu's talk page that his edits constitute vandalism. Is this really the case? All I can see in the diffs provided (on the project page) are a lot of reformatting edits that could not be considered vandalism. It may be frustrating for editors to find Hemanshu unresponsive on his talk page, but is templating him for vandalism and this RFU the way forward? Surely it is quite reasonable for Hemanshu to make these edits, there is no clear consensus at WP:YEARS for the months to be formatted in a particular way (although a couple of editors have discussed it), and it is perfectly reasonable for another editor to revert his changes and attempt a discussion on the relevant talk page. As far as I can see, Hemanshu is not reverting reverts of his edits, so I don't see what is really the problem here; the Edit, Revert, Discuss cycle seems to be working. Sure, it is frustrating that an editor will not engage in discussion, but I don't think there is any obligation for him to do so. I hope someone can enlighten me as to what the issue is here? Poltair (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:TALK#How_to_use_article_talk_pages, it says:

The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.

Seems pretty clear to me. MBisanz ^talk 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's some guidance on talk pages, but I am questioning whether what Hemanshu is doing amounts to vandalism? Have a look at WP:VANDAL where the opening two sentences are,

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

I can't see how that describes what Hemanshu is doing. Poltair (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta agree with MBisanz. It has occasionally happened to me that someone making a non-vandal, non-BLP (but non-consensus) edit just refused to respond to any talk page queries, and after a certain point I started calling it vandalism. In one case I actually had to ask for a block (and got it). I think if Hemanshu weren't an admin, that would all be fairly uncontroversial. You hate to block someone over edits that aren't particularly destructive to the content itself -- but if someone disagrees with the edits and the person making them refuses to talk it over, that is destructive to the project, because it undermines the principle of consensus on which the entire project is based. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Poltair, ideally the users warning him would be using proper templates like ((Uw-mos3)), ((Uw-3rr)), ((Uw-date)), and ((Dates3)), but I can't see how failing to use the right template excuses the behavior of a user who has been an admin for nearly 5 years. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go as far as calling it vandalism or even trolling. Hemanshu has been here on wikipedia to make constructive edits for five years. But of late, he has been flirting with getting blocked while not actually doing something that merits a block. Sitting on the fence of course cannot last long and one is bound to fall on either side. We have been prodding Hemanshu to upgrade his understanding of Wikipedia policy in good faith for over a month now. He has unheeded these calls and instead chosen continue with policies and guidelines that were in effect in 2004. Given Hemanshu's contributions, status, and experience; administrators have been quite lenient and patient, something I know would not be offered to a new person, and would automatically deny adminship to someone running for adminship today. Unfortunately as Hemanshu refused to heed to calls, he slipped up, tripping the 3RR wire today. In addition, he is picking up enough tickets to take the matter to arbcom. These are the flags Hemanshu needs to address immediately:

1. Use and misuse of the rollback function [red flag]
2. Consensus -- The five pillars of Wikipedia [red flag]
3. 3RR -- [red flag]
4. Manual of Style edits [orange flag]
5. Use of edit summaries [orange flag]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent summary. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you both (MBisanz & Nichalp) agree that Hemanshu's behaviour does not amount to vandalism as I think this is an important distinction to make. Yes I accept that there are issues to for Hemanshu to address, but he surely deserves to be treated with some respect and not taunted with inaccurate templates and shouts of vandal from the public gallery just because his approach in unorthodox.Poltair (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin he has more accountability to live up to our policies not blatant disregard for them. Current style is important and others must fix his mistakes. In this regard he is hurting (slight vandalism) more than helping the project. As far as dignity a little common courtesy goes a long way. When queried by he should respond. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Hemanshu violated 3RR, so I filed a request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Hemanshu_reported_by_MBisanz_.28Result:_.29. MBisanz ^talk 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked for 24 hours by WJBscribe. MBisanz ^talk 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if this will do any good. Hemanshu is capable of playing the waiting game. If he sits out today, he'll continue where he left off. Maybe we could increase it to a week the next time it happens and see if that has any effect, but I have my doubts on increasing the length for such a nature. He seems to be gaming the system in a way. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the progression of blocks is 24 hours, 48-72 hours, 96 hours-week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, indef. So unless next year's arbcom all of a sudden decides it is interested where this year's was not, I suspect we will be here for quite awhile. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a problem. We're not talking imminent harm to the encyclopedia here. If that's what he wants, just let the blocks progress, there's no reason to be impatient. But again, what should happen is more clear consensus on how the pages should look and then it can be decided if his edits violate that consensus or not. Where they do a block is justified to prevent edits against consensus. It's really no more no less. It doesn't need all the drama. - Taxman ^Talk 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all the discussion, we I apparently missed that Hemanshu did respond at the RFC at [4]. What to make of that response, I don't know. MBisanz ^talk 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I noticed the comment, and so did How do you turn this on. Taxman too noticed it. But to make sense of it is another thing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's half right: This is about some pretty trivial issues. However, he's as much responsible for the hyperinflation of them as anybody else.. if he spent thirty seconds justifying his edits, or instead just didn't do them.... heh. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial issues do add up... =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but my point is that even if he continued to make these non-consensus edits, if he just had some minimal dialog about it, I really doubt it would have come to an RFC/U and all this hand-wringing. People would just be mildly annoyed that he was stubborn about certain MoS issues. It's the lack of talking that "hyperinflates" it. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the style issues haven't reached a formal consensus, although his repeating the changes in spite of being reverted by prominent editors, without discussion on the article or project talk page, is a problem. If a new editor had made similar changes, he would have been blocked a long time ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hemanshu has deleted their talk page. I'm not entirely sure whether this is against the rules or not, but it does seem a very strange thing to do. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he is leaving Wikipedia, its fine, Jimbo's said so himself, if he keeps editing, we have a problem. MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that he wants to make a fresh start. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the talk page, as per the edits he was blocked for about 15 hours ago on 2012. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still edit warring on 2012. Simply reverting my edits without the use of edit summary. — Orion11M87 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by WJBscribe. Again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note to say that I do not endorse any comparisons made on the RFA process in 2004 and the ones in operation today. They simply cannot be compared. The situation and requirements are quite different. Let's omit the discussion on why or how he got adminship in 2004. That's past. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's irrelevant. The point is he has the tools and is abusing the tools. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't even using the tools, at least improperly. He is being a pain to deal with and so he probably shouldn't be editing but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the tools. His use of the tools have been fairly benign. Removing the tools is a very big deal nowadays. I mean, I remember an editor deleting articles unilaterally under IAR and I don't recall anybody suggested a removal of his tools. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was improperly using the rollback tools to revert administrators. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting the impression of one user who wasn't sure if there was precedent. Admins have long been accountable for general conduct, and good communication has been raised as a requirement more than a few times in looking at administrators. The page on adminship (WP:ADMIN) covers some examples. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The misuse of the admin tools by Hemanshu (talk · contribs), so far, is relatively minor. But if communication is a *requirement* for being an admin, then we should consider filing his name at WP:RFAR at the same moment that a decision is made to issue a block, if consensus reaches that point. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, I think (as the "one user" you're referring to) that should come from Arbcom, and only in the context of a full case. I would be shocked, and nervous about the future, if an admin were desysopped without specific abuse of the tools (or obviously sockpuppetry or other security issues) without a full arbcom case. Chick Bowen 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've never really been active with RFC/U, maybe I'm a little confused about this. I had thought that RFC/U was the process by which the community decided what to do about problem users. I had previously assumed that this included the option to institute a community ban. If this is true, then I fail to see why desysopping can't be instituted as the direct result of an RFC/U, since I think desysopping is less major than a community ban. Am I wrong that an RFC/U could result in a community ban?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We try and exhaust all preventive measures first. In this case, evidence has yet to be shown that WJBScribe's second block did not have an intended effect before we move to Arbcom. In addition, the RFC request was a desire for Hemanshu to pay heed to the community. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that. :) I was asking more on a hypothetical scale. Since Hemanshu's stopped editing, this whole affair here is moot, anyway. So I guess I'm just confused in general about what can/cannot happen as the result of an RFC; If I started an RFC specifically recommending the community ban of User:Example, what would happen? Would it be shut down in favor of an AN thread? If the RFC resulted in a clear consensus to ban, would it have to be approved by ArbCom first? What if the RFC was aimed at desysopping somebody? Would that have to be approved by ArbCom first?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I view an RFC/U as a collection of data that might be used in further proceedings. An RFC/U might serve as evidence in a thread at WP:AN. Such a thread might reach a consensus to block or ban somebody. Arbcom would *not* have to be in the loop, though the affected editor can always appeal to Arbcom. If someone is to be desysopped, I don't know any way to do that without Arbcom. There have been no 'community desysops' that I'm aware of, though admins have been known to resign their tools voluntarily after discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So it's really more useful as a dispute resolution tool than as a tool for seeking sanctions.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It provides a common platform for a user to see reason. It cannot be used as a forum to seek sanction until all other softer means of getting a user to respect Wikipolicy are completely exhausted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]