Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Either way

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC).

---

• Either way (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

This administrator has misused his powers, tending to follow around selected users and revert their edits, while at the same time causing stress in the said user.

At the very least, he should be prohibited from reverting edits made by certain users.

He has reverted too many good faith edits by certain users, such as me. He also cannot be reasoned with, attempts to reason with him often go nowhere.

(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] - examples of easily-challenged reverts
2. [4]
3. [5] - made a threat to me
4. Behavior has been complained about by multiple users.
5. More complaints.
6. Following users' contribs and harrassing them by causing disruption and misusing authority.
7. Mocking users.
8. [6] - accusing me of POV violation when someone else had reverted earlier (also taking the word of an anon over that of a registered user)
9. [7] - stated his intent to hound me
10. [8] more WP:HOUND madness

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

1. WP:AGF
2. WP:HOUND
3. WP:Harrassment
4. WP:NOTCENSORED/WP:PRESERVE - applies because Either way is trying to prevent certain information from appearing

(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. [9]
2. [10]

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. [11]
2. [12]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. This user has been WikiHounding me as well for several months now. Either way's behavior is entirely inappropriate and I suggest something be done immediately. This issue has already been raised with him, but has not stopped. He has claimed previously to have been "checking his watchlist". However, he has nominated perfectly good and informative articles of mine, that he has played no role in, for deletion, and followed my contributions in general. He's also tried to cause trouble around my areas of work by removing fully sourced information. Recently he's also been hanging around my RfA and tried to push for oppose !votes. I have no problem with an oppose, but replying to support !votes to convince people to oppose is inappropriate. I'm extremely stressed and tired because of this repeated harrassment. Therefore, I ask that he stop following our contribs, whether it be voluntary or by authority. -download ׀ sign! 02:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.}

I've seen either way around because I know download in real life. Sometimes I support him, including his AFDs: 1 2 3. However, I think that he is overlooking the edits of download, FMAFan1990, Neutralhomer, and others I may not know about. Especially download because of his recent RFA. either way should step back a little, but he shouldn't be desysopped because of this. MC10 | Sign here! 02:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important links: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Either_way, User_talk:Either_way#My_Edits

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MC10 | Sign here! 02:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of problematic behaviour has been shown in the diffs above. The reverts are fairly typical content dispute reversions. There is a perfectly reasonable good faith answer to the claims of stalking or hounding, which is that User:Either way responds to perceived patterns of problematic edits by checking other editors' contributions. This is to be expected of admins. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. ThemFromSpace 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kcowolf (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. admin and editor doing normal things - Can't see any substance to the complaint - Peripitus (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. No basis for dispute. Agree totally with SheffieldSteel. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Collect (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yintaɳ  22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. -Djsasso (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. trying to AGF with this RFC but totally agree with Sheffield here StarM 01:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Pile on. Checking the other contributions of someone with a history of problem contributions is what people should be doing. – iridescent 19:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. As far as I am concerned, this is a frivolous RfC. — neuro^(talk) 08:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplary editing work. After a thorough examination of the above diffs, I must applaud Either way's style of editing in that, once an editor who adds trivial or poorly supported material is identified, Either way checks in regularly on that editor's work to see if more such material is being added. The best I can recommend here is that the editors who add trivia should take this as a learning experience. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ThemFromSpace 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Daniel (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yintaɳ  22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. -Djsasso (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. — neuro^(talk) 08:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. After looking at the original diffs, it doesn't seem that Either way has done anything out of the ordinary. He's removed trivia that I would also have taken out of the article. He's improved the quality of the article with each of the DIFFs above. As for accusations of hounding, it's certainly not out of the ordinary to look the contributions of someone introducing inappropriate material to an article to make sure they're not doing the same in other places. I have no problem with his edits. Dayewalker (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hey, that's what I said :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sign me up. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. ThemFromSpace 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kcowolf (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Collect (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. -Djsasso (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yintaɳ  22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Again, joining the pile on. Checking the other contributions of someone with a history of problem contributions is what people should be doing. – iridescent 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Lordwow (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. As far as I am concerned, this is a frivolous RfC. — neuro^(talk) 08:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

No basis for admonition found; nearly unanimous agreement that none is merited. Closed per agreement on talk. ÷seresin 06:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.