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: 04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC).

• Hentzer (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

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

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

• that Hentzer uses edit summaries.
• that Hentzer responds to reasonable queries raised on his/her talk page by other editors.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

• Hentzer (talk · contribs) makes a lot of good edits on Brazilian articles, but never provides an edit summary. At least 4 different editors have attempted a total of least 7 times to ask him/her with no response from Hentzer except blanking the page. A wikiquette discussion of this is here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Lack_of_edit_summary_despite_repeated_requested, with no response from Hentzer. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While not every edit requires a summary, Hentzer's lack of good faith requests to do so, or even discuss the issue, is inconsistent with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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. he/she simply ignores these requests for edit summaries with no reason. [1], [2], and continues editing without summaries (as seen in his/her contribution history)

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

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:EDIT

Past arbcom decision have stated expected expectations for use of edit summaries: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Communication Such expected communication includes: ... using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 23:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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. [3]
2. [4]

1. [5]

1. [6]

1. [7]. Use of wikiquette.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

There are two issues being raised here

1. Hentzer is supposedly being non-collaborative by blanking his user talk page after receiving notifications
2. Hentzer should be required to use edit summaries

To the first; any editor may blank their talk page. per WP:BLANKING, "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." He is NOT required to respond.

To the second; there is no policy requiring the use of edit summaries. They can be useful, especially with potentially contentious edits, but they are not required. The bringers of the RfC have not demonstrated there to be any disruption to the project caused by Hentzer's lack of edit summaries. Given the lack of demonstrated disruption, there is no reason to force Hentzer to use edit summaries on pain of sanctions of some sort.

In summary; the bringers of the RfC have failed to demonstrate there to be anything actionable with regards to Hentzer's behavior on these points.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. With the understanding that taking certain actions and not responding to queries about them would be a problem. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. --WaltCip (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with Hammersoft on something, wow! Unless Hentzer's edits are disruptive otherwise, not providing edit summaries is not by itself a problem. There's a reason why the software does not mandate them. Not being a chatty fellow isn't a reason to start a RfC either unless evidence of him failing to discuss something that's actually in dispute is presented. And even then, people can concede a point by simply choosing not to discuss it further, see WP:SILENCE. Unless there's evidence (not presented here) that Hentzer kept doing something controversial while ignoring attempts by others to engage him in discussion, this whole RfC looks on extremely flimsy ground. None of the diffs presented insofar have any evidence of that. And, no, not using edit summaries does not qualify as a dispute over which someone has to reply OR ELSE. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. While it is nice to leave edit summaries, it is explicitly not a requirement. I am disgusted that this user has been threatened [8] in an attempt to bully them into conforming with this non-requirement. And of course anyone who is not blocked may blank their talk page at anytime they wish. Continuing to hound this user about it is what is wrong here. It is openly admitted by those bringing this dispute here that his actual edits are good, so there is no problem to solve here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. It drives me crazy when people don't use edit summaries, blank pages, and refuse to respond to questions and concerns. That said, I own my frustration. Providing edit summaries, while extremely helpful, is not required. Blanking pages is a sure indication that the editor has read the comments. Documented disruption is a problem that we can address. But nothing has been shown to support sanctions in this case. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. It sure would be nice if he used edit summaries, but Wikipedia does not require him to use them. It sure would be nice if he responded to your messages on his talk page, but Wikipedia does not require him to. —SW— ^verbalize 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 15:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Unless his edits are otherwise disruptive, I don't really understand why this was brought to RFCU. Edit summaries are nice and there is nothing wrong with politely requesting someone use them, but it's not at all a sanctionable issue. Likewise, it's nice to respond to talk page messages, but unless someone's conduct is otherwise disruptive that's also not a giant or sanctionable issue. Kevin (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. There appears to be nothing wrong with Hentzer's conduct except a refusal to provide edit summaries. Who cares?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Why should we force something tht's not required? Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC) If we start forcing edit summaries, perhaps we should also sanction people who misspell comments in RFCUs? Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. If there is no stop sign, how can Editor Hentzer be ticketed? I use edit summaries to find my edits within a batch, like breadcrumbs. Should we be allowed to force Ed:Hentzer to use what is considered a valuable tool? Buster Seven Talk 12:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Edit summaries are useful, but they are not required. There is no evidence of disruption. The RfC opening statement even states that the edits this editor is making are good. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

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.