The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

For over a year Hemanshu has refused to respond to inquiries about his edits. Individuals have identified that his edits violate consensus and brought them to his attention. He has failed to respond in any form.

Desired outcome[edit]

That Hemanshu begin responding to inquiries regarding his edits.


Description[edit]

Hemanshu has made several edits over the last year that other editors disagreed with. In good faith they asked him about the edits. To date he has not responded to any of the inquiries and continued to make the same type of edits.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(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], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

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

  1. Wikipedia:Administrators
  2. Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility
  3. Wikipedia:Consensus#Use_of_the_talk_page
  4. Wikipedia:Edit_war#What_is_edit_warring.3F
  5. Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Major_changes
  6. Wikipedia:Talk page
  7. Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Definition_of_disruptive_editing_and_editors
  8. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice
  9. Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27
  10. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking
  11. Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#What_generally_should_not_be_linked
  12. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_autoformatting

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]
  2. [30],
  3. [31]
  4. Emails sent by myself and Jaysweet


Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

  1. Talk edits, User talk edits, Wikipedia talk edits, Wikipedia edits all showing a lack of communication.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. MBisanz talk 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As purely a formality, since an RFC/U doesn't really work with an uncommunicative party. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I tried to contact the user on several occasions on their talk page, and did not get a reply. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Me too. Tried to contact him on his talk page, but he continues to revert without discussion =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Editing against consensus while refusing to communicate is unacceptable. All Wikipedians must be willing to communicate with their fellow editors. Everyking (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed. This editor has made a deal of constructive edits but (even if done in good faith) the long-running background of edits against consensus/WP:MOS amounts to nuisance editing if communication/negotation is refused. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Basic generic endorse. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oh dear. His response below is unfortunate. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Complete disregard for communication is unacceptable. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. No communication, and no regard of standards. — Orion11M87 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse. Communication is not "trivial stuff".--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse. There are even some precedents where users have been blocked if they are unwilling to respond to questions about their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse. Behaviour is clearly unacceptable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  11. Endorse - This is ridiculous how someone with this responsibility cannot either admit to a mistake or formally discuss his reasoning. MattieTK 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse. HiDrNick! 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse. Unacceptable behaviour and response. --Rodhullandemu 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse. Communication is not optional for administrators.  Sandstein  19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse Bstone (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. That reply...oof. Endorse.GJC 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Endorse - Hemanshu's behavior is unacceptable as an admin. -MBK004 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse. Hemanshu is uncooperative and unreasonable. Admins should always be willing to answer inquiries about their edits. Kingturtle (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. User has to communicate. Protonk (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yuck. No edits to Wikipedia talk namespace since 2005, only two edits to the Wikipedia namespace (the reply below and an AFD comment) in 2008, only three edits to the User talk namespace (none replying to any query) in 2008, only five edits to the Talk namespace (none replying to any query) in 2008. One edit to Image talk, not a reply to a query. No 2008 edits to any other talk namespace. A total of 563 edits to all name spaces in 2008. Two blocks for edit warring (on the same page) in 2008. The pattern is unacceptable. GRBerry 16:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse. Sarah 10:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Endorse. Communication is extremely important. GlassCobra 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Hyperinflation of trivial stuff by people who have too much time. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view[edit]

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.}

Outside view by Garycompugeek[edit]

I must confess I am quite surprised to learn this user is an Administrator. This is very un-admin like behavior not to mention the blocks. Communication is a foundation of the project. This admin seems to view it as an annoyance. Suggest desysop and permanent ban if admin continues down this path. I am still confused as to why this user has the tools at all. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Raises significantly questions as to why he was nominated and accepted in the first place. ThePointblank (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NB Hemanshu's RfA was in 2004. It Is Me Here (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, that's a very weak case for adminship. ThePointblank (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Agree with all except the ban.[reply]
    I know this might be frowned on for butting in, but I do not endorse comparing Adminship '04 with Adminship '08. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should adminship expire after 4 years? I have not formed an opinion but others are questioning RFA's from 2004. Chergles (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's an extreme suggestion. Good and bold admins may be outed by politics if so. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still a point to be made though. Most admins appointed around that time (such as yourself), have caught up with the times, and accept the changes made. Hemanshu not only ignores it, but is ignoring messages and abusing tools like rollback to push his views. It could be said he is out of the loop, and is refusing to get back into it. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It could also be said that he is a rogue administrator who needs to be declawed. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse de-sysop. Ban? Not yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 15:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse view and endorse reluctantly a desysop if user does not begin communicating and stop editing against consensus. I don't think this is at the stage where it warrants a community ban, but this behaviour is most unbecoming of an administrator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Endorse de-sysop, in light of his dismissive participation even on this very page. HiDrNick! 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse de-sysop possibly followed by very long term block or ban. Bstone (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse de-sysop. Hemanshu's response above virtually verifies the main complaint. Like someone said above, communication is not optional for admins. Tan | 39 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. De-sysop. Response on this page is an assumption of bad faith, if not a plain insult, against at least seven editors who spoke out up to this diff. No need for a ban. NVO (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support desysopping- the fact that he's ignoring seven editors requests for clarification speaks for itself. If you won't talk to the community, then you're fired. As for a block or ban, I have no opinion on that at this point. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse de-sysop only -MBK004 04:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse de-sysop (If I can, not being an admin) Whilst not involved, I do remember following this a few weeks ago when it came on AN/I, and was slightly worried. All the admins I've ever dealt with have been polite, courteous and usually very quick to respond to any queries I've had. To see an admin who doesn't appear to be any of these is worrying, and farnkly doesn't seem to deserve being an admin for any longer. Skinny87 (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse - If this gets him to start communicating, then that would be excellent. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse - (Moved my comment from below. Details of my old comment are in the history). Communication is a requirement of adminship. If consensus leads to a block, sending his name over to WP:RFAR for consideration of desysopping could be done at the same time. Though a block would be justified if he resumes editing without discussing, I don't see any reason for a ban. Hemanshu (talk · contribs) has not edited since 7 November, and I suggest waiting for him to edit again before taking any practical steps as a result of this RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse Remove the bit. Protonk (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse, support desysop. Communication is non-negotiable in my opinion. Admins don't have to be best mates with people but you have to be willing to explain yourself and respond to reasonable queries. Sarah 10:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Dsvyas[edit]

User:MBisanz left a comment on gu:User:Spundun's talkpage on gu, but unfortunately neither Spundun nor Hemanshu are active there. I am the only active Sysop there on gu, where both Spundun and Hemanshu are sysops, but I haven't seen any activity by either of them since last December.-- DhavalTalk 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. User:Dsvyas
  2. Well, it is an accurate fact. MBisanz talk 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Chick Bowen[edit]

I agree that everyone should be willing to answer questions about their edits, although ultimately we have few ways of doing so other than social pressure (such as at this forum). Hemanshu is wrong to dismiss these concerns as trivial. However, desysopping has been raised and I want to address that. With the exception of rollback, no misuse of sysop tools has so far been cited. (Please do correct me if I am wrong, of course.) I cannot think of a precedent (other than sockpuppetry cases, which this is not) in which someone was desysopped if their use of the tools was not in itself a major issue. Chick Bowen 17:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse I wonder if we end up in the strange position of an indefinite block but a continuation of sysop powers. He could always come back if he simply responded to people's concerns instead of dismissing them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse The closest parallel is User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. The problems there were both utter failure to communicate combined with problematic blocks. That resulted in a temporary desysopping until communication resumed - which has not yet occurred > 5 months later. [32][33] Based on my observations, it seems likely that were this user to use their tools much before they begin communicating successfully there is a high risk that they would end up doing so problematically and being desysopped. GRBerry 17:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think a closer parallel is probably User:Mikkalai, who IIRC was desysopped for reasons almost exactly like these -- tendentious editing, severe lack of communication. Am I correct about this? Someone please tell me if I am not, as that would affect my opinion as this case as well. Precedent is fairly important here. GlassCobra 12:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That editor is an admin today.[34] Checking the user rights log and the obsolete bureaucrat log they have been an admin continually since February 17, 2004. GRBerry 14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Gladys J Cortez[edit]

Admins who refuse to communicate re: their actions--even their actions as editors--should not be admins. Current admin candidates get dinged at their RfA if they don't use edit summaries-- any candidate who showed a pattern of refusal to RESPOND??? good heavens, they'd not only fail RfA, there would probably be people calling for their ban!! I'm not willing to go that far, esp since I only know this admin through his (IMHO dismissive) response to this complaint--otherwise I've not encountered him. But I think a temporary desysop, with an option to be reinstated IFF he begins responding appropriately to requests and questions, is in order here. GJC 19:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Newyorkbrad[edit]

Not commenting on the merits of any dispute, but I'm not sure if anyone here has noticed that Hemanshu hasn't edited (or taken any administrator actions) for over a month now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.

Summary[edit]

Editor stopped editing on 7 November 2008 - should he return and continue engaging in the problematic conduct brought up in this RFC, then this needs to go to the appropriate venue (namely, ArbCom) so that further action may be taken.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More