Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

I wondered if you had a reply to my suggestion here? The thread was closed before you had a chance to reply, perhaps? Apologies if you already replied and I missed it, but I thought my suggestion made sense. --John (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly one of the more sensible things I've seen recently. I wasn't aware that it required a response. But I am in general agreement. However, I am not going to apologize for fixing a typo. I am learning from this experience, I don't mind saying. -R. fiend (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, on the Easter Rising article, there were two occasions were the page was protected, and on both occasions the page block was breached. The first occasion was here, protected by Luna, the protection was then breached here, with this comment on the talk page. Having pointed that they were told not to edit the page I got this response. There was a storm of protest on the talk page, if you notice there were two changes made. There was no agreement at all on the first of them, and it materially changed the whole context of the statement. This is outlined here and here in a rather long thread. The thing is, they knew what they were doing. They knew there was no agreement, and made me out to be a liar. I explained this and Fozzie checked it out, and agreed I was right. So while Jj137 page protected the article again the somewhat trivial edits take on a whole new aspect? So you have two breaches of page protection, despite the problems created. I just seems on the RfC, that the two have become mixed up? Thanks again, and I left a post here for you as well.--Domer48 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my (RxS (talk)) outside view R. fiend said:

RESPONSE: It seems you might be taking my "elsewhere" comment as a "don't edit Wikipedia if you don't like me personally", which is not the case. By elsewhere, I meant "if you're looking for a warm and friendly face, you're better off seeking another person." Not sure if you were interpreting that as such, but I want to clarify nevertheless. -R. fiend (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say go elsewhere it's easy to imagine you mean some other site or article as opposed to if you had said go speak to someone else. But that's semantics and doesn't get to the heart of the point. An editor shouldn't have to pick and choose who to talk to if they want to avoid sarcastic/snide or generally uncivil responses. And they definitely shouldn't have to be afraid to approach an admin for the same reasons. The bottom line is that there's an enormous amount of space between warm/fuzzy and uncivil...and admins are really expected to act in that space. They can be warm and fuzzy if they want, but they can't be uncivil and snide if they want. I realize that everyone makes mistakes, and there has been times that everyone slips into incivility, but here it's a pattern and something you think (or seem to think) is ok. RxS (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is a difference between snide and snarky, and uncivil. The RfC seems to have turned from a question of abuse of admin powers to referendum on "isn't this guy an asshole?" The only examples of uncivil behavior have been involving one specific person, who has been widely criticized for the same thing. (Only he's worse, BTW) People have been complaining about my tone or whatever here, but where is the actual uncivil behavior? I used the word "puerile" because it is probably the most accurate word to describe Domer's behavior, and I'm not going to dance around that fact. Believe me, I could have used much harsher descriptions. I have little tolerance for idiocy. Sorry, but there is idiocy displayed at Wikipedia on a daily basis, and it does no good to deny that, nor to tolerate it. "Douchebaggery" is perhaps not the best word (I've been trying to get it used more ever since the captain of the ship I worked on used it in a memo to his boss, describing his behavior), and I considered linking to WP:DICK, but I didn't think that much better. As for "whining" well, when people complain about things that benefit them, I call it whining. Everyone agrees that my recent edits to Easter Rising were beneficial (even necessary, I'll warrant), to complain because I did it is the worst form of wikilawyering, and losing sight of what's most important, which is improving Wikipedia articles. So that's my response. Has anyone seen an example where I was approached by someone in a civil manner and I responded with hostility? No one has pointed one out yet, that I have seen. Thanks for your time. -R. fiend (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RxS is right to point to the general problem of having to avoid editors who are unpleasant, but I think that there is a particular difficulty when an admin is a self-described "snide bastard". When R.fiend says that he meant "if you're looking for a warm and friendly face, you're better off seeking another person", I think that he is missing an important point: when the person one is dealing with is an admin, an editor doesn't always have the choice of finding someone else, unless they go through the hassle of escalating an issue to ANI or some other such forum, which new editors may not even know about. People have a right to expect civility from whoever they encounter, and since Wikipedia:Civility is a policy, not just a guideline, I don't think someone who apparently rejects that policy should be an admin.

R.fiends's response that he is snide and snarky only when provoked is not acceptable either; WP:CIVIL#Reducing_the_impact outlines various ways of responding to perceived incivility, none of which involves being uncivil in reply, and my reading of WP:CIVIL is that it does not permit "snide and snarky" behaviour. R.fiend, please can you re-read Wikipedia:Civility and see if you want to reconsider the comment to which I am replying? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is calling me "unpleasant" any better than me calling Domer "puerile"? This RfC has become about personality now. Well, in four years of editing here, there are very few instances of alleged incivility, and none of them were actual personal attacks. One was an edit summary directed at no one. The only talk page comment mentioned was misrepresented as being about politics. I'm not trying to be combative here, but I am trying to explain the actions I made, which is not the same as denying I ever did anything wrong. I do think most actions I've made were justified, which is why I made them. Of course everyone makes mistakes. I admit blocking Domer myself probably wasn't the best idea, but, that being said, the block itself was justified, and upheld. Of course the situation would be different if Domer hadn't violated 3rr, or if my recent edits to Easter Rising were even in the slightest way controversial. But that is not the case.

Incidentally, I think you dividing issues into "Yes I was wrong", and "unfounded" is putting words in my mouth, and slightly unfair.-R. fiend (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I did not call you "unpleasant". I referred to the "general problem of having to avoid editors who are unpleasant", and when it came to I used your own self-chosen label of "snide bastard".

And I didn't "put words in your mouth". You yourself wrote "Perhaps the best way to proceed from here would be to divide the accusations into those in which I admit I could have shown better judgment and those that are without basis", which I summarised as "Yes I was wrong", and "unfounded". It seems to me to be entirely clear what was a quote from you and what wasn't, nd the summary seems very straightfoward.

Sadly, all the responses seem to fit a similar pattern. Your responses seem to be saying you attach derogatory labels to others, that's fine because it's just the way you are, and when other editors object to that self-description, you complain that it is "about personality now". Insofar as it as bout personality, that is solely because you have chosen to defend your conduct by describing it as part of your character: you made it a personality issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, under the circumstances, for assuming when you talked of unpleasant editors you meant me. No matter. As to this matter of attaching derogatory epithets to others, you make it seem like that's just sort of what I do. Now when do I do this exactly? I called Domer's behavior "puerile" to be sure (which is not exactly the same thing as calling him puerile), but I found it a fitting description. Call a spade a spade. When someone behaves poorly, is it really fair to fault the person who points out the poor behavior? Also note that I said can be a snide bastard, not that I totally am, and even that is more about tone than action. My dismissal of the AN/I is a good example of my snide side showing. I honestly did (and basically still do) think that it was just silly, and I didn't balk at making that clear. A needed change was made, and one can argue whether the end justifies the means, but it's not like a had to stab anyone in the throat to do it. In any case, I don't want to dwell on the recent Rising edits. People seem to be under the impression that I am constantly combating other users and making personal attacks, but this really just isn't the case. -R. fiend (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would say most people feel the problem is your apparent unwillingness to justify your actions when questioned rather than the actions themselves; combined with your seeming inability to understand that other editors may justifiably require you to do so... Well, it's not looking good, and you'd go a long way to mending things if you could acknowledge that rather than dismiss it out of hand. — Coren ^(talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting to justify, or at least explain, my actions. When I do that it seems I get attacked for not admitting I did anything wrong. Now, when I said I could be something of a snide bastard, it was sort of a mea culpa. It's part of who I am, (can a leopard change his spots?) but I could certainly work harder to keep that in check at times. That being said, I have been editing here for 4 years or so, and in that time I've had many encounters with many users, and I would not like to think that the 3 or 4 worst examples should be representative of my interactions as a whole. I'll admit my "fascist censorship" summary was a bit over the top. It was meant in jest, but I am fully aware not everyone will appreciate it. So yes, I have not always acted entirely admirably, but I do not think that such actions warrant an RfC, but that is clearly only my opinion. This is clearly about several small issues rather than any one major one, and I think some of them are just not worthwhile, some have been misrepresented, and some, as I said, have some validity. -R. fiend (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← R. fiend, this is not about the single edit you made when the Easter Rising article was fully-protected; that was just the final act in a long litany of misuse, and the one which brought all this to ANI. You're still not addressing the fundamental issue here. - Alison ^❤ 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I never said it was, though it still seems to be what people are having the largest issues with now. In any case, I've addressed most other points; I really am thinking people aren't reading what I write. So what specifically would you like me to address? -R. fiend (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1.2 spells out everything in detail here. The "desired outcome", section 1.1 spells out the solution. It's really that simple. Listen to what John has been trying to tell you - Alison ^❤ 07:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share the worries of many well-respected editors here, that R. fiend has misused his admin powers in disputes. I also heartily endorse the sentiment that adherence to our policies (including WP:CIVIL) cannot be optional and that indeed admins should attempt to model above-average standards of behaviour. However, I would only see deadminship as necessary if there is evidence that R. Fiend has not learned from others' criticisms here. Per this comment above I am not sure that this is the case.

It would be appreciated if R. fiend could find it in himself to make an unconditional apology for his misconduct; it was all the more frustrating for me personally as I was one of a number of admins who tried to counsel him away from the behaviour that is the subject of the current discussion. A recommendation of deadminship would, in my opinion, be necessary only if there is no commitment to improve in future.

Finally it is important to realise that the existence of uncivil editors with passionate POVs, and edit-warring, on this area of articles may provide mitigation of R. fiend's behaviour, but it does not excuse it. We should all be capable of learning from criticism here. --John (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point. Its important to remember it is not always easy being an admin, sometimes you can use the tools with the best intentions in challenging situations but end up misusing them. That sometimes we can overstep the line is natural and to be expected, and not grounds for de-adminship. However, its equally important that we can recognize the occurrences that happens and attempt to resolve them.

Rather than taking away his toolbelt, I would much rather an acknowledgment that there is a problem and an concerted effort to remedy it and not repeat it. However, at least on the RfC page itself, I see little appreciation for the concerns of others and what appears to be a dismissive attitude - (paraphrasing) "this is what I am like and I passed an RfA, so live with it". In that situation, I would suggest the admin put his money where his mouth is and permit the community at large to decide whether indeed that is an acceptable attitude for an admin. The way to do that is to volunteer another RfA. Rockpocket 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this is what I am like and I passed an RfA, so live with it"? Wow. I hardly think that's a fair assessment of my attitude at all. -R. fiend (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid thats the take home message I got, and it appears from the support of BHG statement, I'm not alone.

"I will freely admit I can be a snide bastard at times. People knew that during my RfA, where it was a bit of an issue, but I was promoted nevertheless"..."I do have little patience for idiocy and, for lack of a better word, "douchebaggery""..."People looking for warm and fuzzy should probably go elsewhere"..." the edit summary was a bit obnoxious, but it was merely a hyperbolic response to what I had been putting up with for a while. It was sarcastic, and I am quite a sarcastic guy."'

All these statements admit to, clearly in my opinion, unconstructive characteristics in editing, and seriously problematic in dealing with administrative problems. Thats not to say that we all don't have them occasionally, but we should be trying to minimize sarcasm, snideness, low patience for idiocy when using the tools, not excusing them with a "thats just me" shrug. Dealing with "idiocy" and "douchebaggery" is what admins spent much of their time doing, I would expect admins to deal with it with patience, and if they are unable to do so, then not to do it. You say that people "knew" that during you RfA.Did they, really? I mean, if you had written these statements during the RfA do you think your would still have been promoted? I don't. Rockpocket 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Dealing with "idiocy" and "douchebaggery" is what admins spent much of their time doing? You must have little faith in most editors here, then. I think admins spend much of time dealing with contentious editing, POV, petty vandalism, and well-meaning but sometimes at-odds editors (as well as, hopefully, a solid amount of editing). True idiocy is somewhat rare, and not worth the effort that the previous examples require. No idea if I would still have made admin, but I never misrepresented myself at RfA. -R. fiend (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way to find out.......- Rjd0060 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh-ho! Oh snap! But what's your control for that experiment? -R. fiend (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with that assessment of your negative attitude. You've seen BrownHairedGirl's statement which has been endorsed by several editors, including myself, so I'm not going to beat around the bush: Are you willing to voluntarily give up your adminship status? You, of course, will be able to begin another RfA. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I expect you didn't misrepresent yourself and I didn't mean to suggest that. To be clear, I don't wish to pressure R. fiend into "voluntarily" giving up his tools (it wouldn't be voluntary, then). The point of an RfC is for the community to have their say and (hopefully) the subject of it will listen and act accordingly. If R. fiend doesn't consider it appropriate to reaffirm the level of commmunity support in him voluntarily at this time, then he doesn't have to. If he moves on from this with his tools and there are no further problems then it will be a success for everyone, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the case. If he moves on with his tools and there are further problems, there is a mechanism to deal with that. At that point the choice could be taken out of his hands, or he may be vindicated and perhaps the rest of us need to reconsider our opinions. Rockpocket 05:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pressuring anybody, it was a simple question, and I respect his answer either way. I wasn't implying that you suggested it, I was stating that I, and others (as evident from the other page) think it may be appropriate to relinquish his status, and attempt another RfA, and if the community "trusts" him, he will be re-given the tools. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that I’m becoming the focus of some attention, and quite a number of allegations, which deflects from the issue involved here, might I suggest that at the conclusion of this current RfC, that one be initiated about my conduct? Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, I take comfort from the fact that contrary to my deeply held assumption, the community is not deaf, dumb or blind to the actions of Administrators. Having now seen the attention to detail, the time and effort which has gone into producing this report, I will not demean it with any attempt to justify or mitigate any of my behaviour, regardless of frustration, provocation or what I may have regrettably perceived to be a lack of interest by Administrators. Content disputes come and go, but its how we conduct ourselves, and the example we give that tells on us all. --Domer48 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there has been talk of a WP:RFC/U for you, but I am not sure what was decided. I find it interesting that you are asking for one though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that the presumption that an editor that is complaining about administrator bias or misbehavior is without basis is very rarely unfounded. I would ballpark estimate that well over 95% of complaints against administrators are made in bad faith; and that's probably a bit optimistic— that's why you need a strong, well supported case before the community reacts; after all an administrator has already earned the community's trust. This often led to cries of cabals. But – quite opposite to the common misperception – administrators, as a community, are very unforgiving of misbehaving peers.

What you may have encountered in the past is more likely to be well-founded skepticism than a brush off; and it's an unfortunate but unavoidable fact that the rare genuine cry of admin abuse is met with resistance and disbelief at first.

There is a very good reason why administrators are, basically, given tenure: almost by definition the acts we have to take everyday will displease someone— and often those angered editors will be the – shall we say – less well behaved among us. Blocking someone, preventing edition and outright deleting prose are all innately unpopular acts (if necessary) and making administrators dependent on transient mood or an Astroturf campaign would scare most into not acting when necessary. — Coren ^(talk) 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Rjd0060, I simply don’t want to deflect editors attention from the issue at hand. A lot of this conduct predates any interaction with me. If I’m in the wrong, well then I must accept any sanctions imposed. Having been a participant in two ArbCom’s, I bound by all determinations. I simply want to edit articles. I enjoy it. I don’t consider the articles I edit to be contentious, it’s the editors that create that. If Administrators find fault with my conduct, as part of any sanction, I would hope they could also provide me with some problem solving alternatives to any behaviour which they consider escalates issues. For example, I have just come round to the notion that rather than revert an edit, which is unreferenced add a “Fact Tag.” Or where an editor/admin uses a term such as “Many historians say” rather than revert it as comment or opinion add a “Specify Tag.” I have requested in the past that my edits be monitored, and to be pulled up if I step out of line. But most important of all, that I feel I have the support of Administrators if my efforts at problem solving are proving ineffective. Like I said, all I want to do is edit. --Domer48 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome an RfC on Domer48. Domer has already said on the Easter Rising talk page that he would be in favour of an RfC[1]. I would far rather discuss my statement there than here. Scolaire (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, a RfC on me, would give me the opportunity to address some of the allegations that are made about me. I will concede that is a very selfish reason, considering the time and effort that goes into it. But like I said, I will not defend any incivility by me regardless! --Domer48 (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. When I said interesting, that wasn't a negative thing. I would want to address accusations against myself also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I did'ent take it as being negative, but I will admit like I said that I am also being selfish for suggesting it.--Domer48 (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 26th embedded link on the RfC page links to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter_Rising&diff=prev&oldid=179247486, which seems to be incorrect. The text says that he reverted the article after it was protected, so is the edit immediately prior to his self-revert it? If so, to which revision was that a revert? Could someone help clear this up? Thanks. WODUP 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this section of the talk page where compliants about him making that edit on a protected article where made, he only self reverted when admin John addressed the issue on R. friend talk page, no agreement or agreed wording was reached on the article talkpage prior to his edit on an protected article, the other issue is that even if agreement had of been reached he should have ask a uninvolved admin to make the edit.--Padraig (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually one of several errors or misrepresentations that appear in this RfC. -R. fiend (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I just interject here to draw attention to R.fiend's reply. I'm quite open to the possibility that there is another take on events, and I would be happy to see him put his POV. But instead he just calls this a "misrepresentation", without making the effort to explain why he thinks it is a misrepresentation. I think that's very poor conduct: if there is evidence that points to a difft interpretation, R.fiend should produce it, and if there isn't any evidence the claim of misrepresentation amounts to a personal attack.

An admin should be prepared to justify his actions, not to simply dismiss criticism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained in more detail elsewhere in my comments what the true story of the edit to the Easter Rising article, and I didn't feel like repeating myself excessively ad nauseam. As I said before, that edit was not a revert (as the RfC states) but an edit which there appeared to be a consensus for on the talk page. When people complained, I reverted it, even though it wasn't until much later that anyone voiced any actual criticism of the edit itself (which turned out to be basically over the word "helped"). Padraig even said "I have no problem with the edit" but still complained about it. On another note, there is another misrepresentation in the same section of the RfC, where it says I "immediately" made an edit after the page was protected. I made the edit after a request for that uncontroversial change had been on the talk page for a day, without having been acted upon. Hardly immediate. -R. fiend (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the error in the statement above in the section Easter Rising. The crux of it was this section of the sentence highlighted "Meanwhile, the IRB, reorganised by Thomas Clarke, a former prisoner, and Seán MacDermott, continued to plan, not for limited home rule under the British Crown, but for an independent Irish republic." R.fiend would not accept that is was Tom Clarke who reorganised the IRB. So not only did they breach the page protect, they altered the whole context, reducing the role of Clarke to one who would "help in these efforts." One only has to read this section, to know that it had been an issue of some importance. This was prior to both page protect and the edit. --Domer48 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely moot, anyway. You used your admin tools to edit a page that was protected due to dispute, and one in which you were in dispute. The edits you made (disputedly) were not those agreed on the talk page. As an admin, you just don't do that stuff. That's what ((editprotected)) is for - Alison ^❤ 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the Segi block here, so as not to deflect from the real purpose of the RfC. I consider it to be a misuse of powers and should be considered as such. --Domer48 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. As I'm the editor who initially filed this case, I'd just like to point out that this case is about an admin who persistently misused his admin tools. That's all. It's not a general conduct RfC about an editor nor a "Troubles" case, it's specifically about misuse of admin tools. The desired outcome that I wished for was that the admin in question would recognize that what he did was inappropriate and at least desist from doing it any more. So far, he hasn't really addressed the substance of this request, instead, referring to this as "whining", etc. He basically isn't seeing the problem here.

It's patently obvious at this point that nothing will be resolved by this, as RfC is a toothless entity. For this reason, I intend to wait a short while longer and if nothing comes of this, I intend to bring this to the attention of the Arbitration Committee who do have the ability to enforce matters. This was not my original goal at all - I wanted understanding and an amicable resolution - but now, I'm not holding out much hope - Alison ^❤ 01:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, as it is unfortunate that R. fiend has yet to address the real issues here, without complaining about the merit of this process. This RfC wouldn't have happened if the user had addressed the issues when he was asked. His continued unwillingness to cooperate with this process will only cause escalation, and I'd think he would want to avoid that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would also rather it didn't go there, but it's looking more and more likely. My comment here is just a final attempt to get this resolved with the minimum of drama and fallout - Alison ^❤ 01:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I had hoped this would have been resolved within the AN/I thread. So clearly, I'd hope AC would be out of the picture, but apparently it isn't. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he recognizes it publicly, he may well desist from doing it any more as a result of this RfC. By "if nothing comes of this" do you mean "if a similar sort of behaviour continues from R fiend"? Rockpocket 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Rockpocket, this editor has a reputation for walking away from things without comment, then resuming where he left off. So far he has not given any indication that he will stop. On the contrary, in fact. He sees looking for an uninvolved as time-wasting and people who think otherwise are being "very petty" and "whining", and that it's okay to block people you're in dispute with because "the end result would have been the same with either action". That's just not acceptable in an admin and given that he repeatedly refuses to recognize this, I fail to see the alternative - Alison ^❤ 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I was just trying to establish the basis on which we would be moving towards an RfAR. Rockpocket 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, I'm not sure what can or will come of this if people misconstrue everything I say and do. For one, I have addressed, in some capacity at least, almost all of the points brought up in this RfC. Now am I met with something of a no-win situation: if I defend what I did, I'm "not seeing the problem", if I admit I made mistakes, then I'm guilty of abusing powers. I admit I have, at times, crossed the line. But for an RfC that is allegedly all about abuse of admin powers, it has become all about personality (and, though some might like to try, I will not take the entire blame for making it such). Snarky edit summaries are not an abuse of admin powers, so if you want to say this such abuses, they should not be included, which is a shame because that is one area where I'll certainly improve. Now we have people saying I called this RfC "whining", which I did not. I called the initial AN/I "whining" because it was a couple people complaining about me fixing some typos. Well, that much I will not apologize for, for reasons expressed so well by WODUP in his statement. No editor should ever feel hesitant to or intimidated from making simple but significant corrections to mistakes in articles. That is what each and every one of us is here for, though I think some may forget that. Any action I made on any article was to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. That is why I am here, not for wikipolitics (which I can't stand), nor to make friends (which must be pretty obvious by this stage), and not push some POV (which occurs way too much here). Furthermore, it now appears I am being condemned before the fact for not making any changes in conduct in the future.

So here goes: will I refrain from the obnoxious comments? Sure (though don't be surprised if some light-hearted sarcasm still comes through). Will I show more restraint with article protection? Fine (I'll examine the matter of semi-protection a bit more as well). Will I be more careful when blocking people? You bet (but the anon vandalism only accounts will still still get little restraint). Will I continue to fix typos and the like on protected articles? Indeed. If people have a problem with that, well, honestly, they shouldn't. When the edits are indisputably beneficial, people should be concerned with the edits themselves, not who made them. Those doing otherwise should ask themselves if they really have he best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, and if they do not they should seriously consider going elsewhere. Maybe they can referee schoolyard games somewhere. Fixing a typo should not be like buying a new CookEasi oven (those who don't get that reference and have 5 minutes to spare, see this), and I don't intend to treat it as such. Will this satisfy some people? I don't know, and, in the grand scheme of things, it's not terribly important. Very little in life is. If people want to take this to arbcom it's entirely up to them. -R. fiend (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, R. fiend, it's not about personalities. At least not in my case, and I filed the RfC. Some background; I'm one of the most active WP:RFPP admins - the most active in the last 6 months, in fact. Given that page protection is an admin action and seriously curtails the rights of other editors to edit Wikipedia, I take this very seriously indeed. You've only ever done 25 or so protects^[2] whereas I've done, well, thousands^[3], so I was pretty shocked when I saw the extent of your abuse of the system. To be honest, you've already been proven to have "abused powers" - we all know this - but the missing piece is that you've not acknowledged that - not even now - and thus how can we move on here? As for your making "obnoxious comments", well there have been more than one person doing that. I'm more than aware of what Domer48 is like and what he's been doing. He's no angel. But he's not an admin and he's not abusing admin tools. You are. You can be as obnoxious as the next editor, far as I'm concerned, but you do not bring your admin tools into it. There are already a number of admins working on Troubles articles; I'm thinking of people like John and BrownHairedGirl for example, but none of them have been doing the kind of things you've been at here. Please don't get me wrong here - I'm not out to "get" you or anything, or have you de-sysopped. I just want you to stop. It's giving us (admins) a bad name when other admins get away with this stuff and consider it trivial - Alison ^❤ 05:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this. There is no personality aspect to this whatsoever from my side; as far as I am aware I had never interacted with R. fiend until recently and I believe he has acknowledged that I have endeavoured to treat him fairly, even in warning him not to continue the behaviour which has led this as far as it has got. If I was to see an unequivocal undertaking not to repeat the misuse of admin tools which so many have endorsed over the page, I think that would end the matter for me. As Alison says though, it makes things harder for those of us who regularly work in this area to ensure things run as smoothly as possible if we have someone like yourself editing protected articles, blocking editors they are in dispute with, and so on. It gives all of us a bad name. You don't need to tell me how hard it can be to stay civil in such a highly-charged area of Wikipedia, but we all have to try. Please have a serious think about how we are going to move this forwards. Another Arbcom would be an awful waste of everyone's energy and we need good admins to help in Irish articles, not a deadminship or a parole. I know the outcome I want from this; what about you? --John (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally endorse what you say Alison this is not about The Troubles articles or the behaviour of Domer.BigDunc (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Domer48 has his own agenda and that there are article issues, and that yes - R. fiend is doing some excellent work on redressing that balance, this is not about editors, nor is it about articles; it's about misuse of admin tools, going back ages. By all means, bring an RfA regarding Domer48's behaviour or discuss putting him on Troubles parole. I'm good with all these things. However, this is about abuse of tools and almost all of the examples brought up (I only checked the last few months) have gone unaddressed by this admin. And that is of major concern - Alison ^❤ 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I again suggest that one of them file a RfC on me, one in which my "agenda" is addressed, or exposed and R. fiend's "excellent work on redressing that balance" can be shown (with diff's of course). --Domer48 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following notice "All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page," not be pointed out to the editor? --Domer48 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is slowly becoming a sort of Kafkaesque experience. I mention that there are some misrepresentations in the RfC and I'm accused of making a personal attack (a term I think people throw around a bit too loosely; I think accusing me of making a personal attack is in itself a personal attack, so there). I explain two of the misrepresentations and I'm told that I've ignored requests to provide examples, and in this explanation of a specific point that was raised, I'm furthermore reprimanded for not addressing the other issues. I'm told that is absolutely not about personality, and yet BrownHairedGirl's statement is all about alleged hostility in my recent comments, which is a personality issue. I'm attacked for even using the word "idiocy" in a very general way by one editor, while another says dealing with idiocy is "what admins spent much of their time doing." Much of what I say is completely ignored, including explanations of my actions, admitting I have not always behaved admirably, and outlining some improvements I intend to make. Finally, people take issue with a link I provided in an effort to explain a somewhat obscure reference I made about bureaucracy. For the first time I'm starting to wonder if some of the wikicritics aren't as paranoid as I thought. -R. fiend (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that you might not be persuaded that you have been doing anything wrong. However, what really disappoints me is that with a clear consensus that you should stop, you don't seem able to even say something along the lines of "OK, folks, I think that what you are asking is silly and bureaucratic, but I accept that a consensus is a consensus, even if it's one I disagree with. So I will accept the points listed at Desired outcome".

That shouldn't be a new experience. WP:CONSENSUS is central to how wikipedia works, and there are plenty of times I and other editors have had to work within a consensus we believe to be mistaken. In this case you have nearly two dozen editors holding up a red flag in front of you, and only four even prepared to accept that there may have been mitigating circumstances (see the statement by Scolaire it seems that the best you can do is to offer to modify a few small details of conduct. What's being asked is not complex: e.g. using ((editprotected)) takes only a minute or two more than editing the article yourself.

I also think that your Kafka analogy is also seriously misplaced. K. was a powerless "little guy" cracking under pressure from an oppressive system, whereas the issue here is how you use the powers you have. You have been given those powers by the community, and the community is telling you that you are not using those powers in an acceptable way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to go back on that one for a minute, please. Why exactly did you block User:Ed Poor on here and why did you never apologize or try to explain what happened? The reason I ask is because I just found an essay, written by you, about Conservapedia. Ed Poor happens to be an admin there^[4];

That's just unreal. Tell me again what happened, and how you blocked Ed Poor? He's pretty annoyed about it, from his comment on the main page here. Let me ask you; did you block him in retribution for his block on Conservapedia? - Alison ^❤ 08:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why Ed Poor sounded familiar. I had forgotten about that. I'm pretty sure I can say there was no connection. Or at least no intentional connection. My time at Conservapedia was quite brief and, looking at the history, long before that block (I think I only edited for a week or so in July). It was a while ago, but there's a chance I was really really drunk when that happened (maybe even high) which happens very rarely, but, I admit, it does happen. Usually my drinking has little affect on my doings (with the exception of more frequent typos) but there have been occasions where I have blacked out, and done things I really can't attest to. As I said, I don't remember. But it would certainly be a weird coincidence if it was the random accident I thought it was, now that I look at it. (My other thought that maybe I left myself logged in on someone else's computer also seems unlikely now.) Now I'm more confused than before, really. Well, here's one thing I can say I will unequivocally not do again. I apologize. Assuming I did it, and it seems I must have. I don't think I've done anything else like that. With the exception of Domer's 3rr block (which was justified in being done, the question being whether I should have been the one to do it), just about every other block I've done were for blatant vandalism (usually from first time anons). As I said, I can't give any real explanation for what I don't remember. I'll look over stuff and see if anything rings a bell. -R. fiend (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is bang out of order, just testing the system. How could an editor get round a perminent block? --Domer48 (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear an assurance that won't happen again, but the rest of it leaves me even less happy than before.

It now seems that we also have an admin who edits and uses admin tools while drunk or high :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand that. Though in 4 years, this has happened once, and as I said, it won't happen again. I'll admit I edit while drinking quite a bit (though I hope people understand if I don't want to delve into personal substance issues in this forum) but mere drinking and being blackout drunk are two very different things (again, I'm assuming this explanation of what exactly happened is the correct one). The latter happens very very rarely, and generally don't edit wikipdia in that state. -R. fiend (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two acts of premeditated vandalism, two permanent blocks, deliberately breaching policies, edit warring and personal attackss on editors? Yet again, I did not breach the 3rr, reverting your edit put me on 3. The question is not whether you should have been the one to do it, it's the fact that you should not have been the one who blocked me? That is our own policies on COI. --Domer48 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On WP while drunk? I recommend hiring User:Giano II as your lawyer and then using the User:Vintagekits defence - it seems to work... ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I have acted on the consensus I have seen on the main RfC page, and opened a Request for Arbitration. You may add (brief, 500 words or less) statements Here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I fixed the link above (went to WP:RFA). - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I've never been involved in Arbcom before. Do I get to make a statement now, and if so, any place in particular? -R. fiend (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, go to the page I linked to, R. fiend, since you're an involved party, you can place your statement under Alison's and I'll set up a section for your reply, or you can do so yourself SirFozzie (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will also be a seperate comment page where you and others editors can address issues or comments made in the arbcom.--Padraig (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's IF the case gets opened (and yes, there's 2 of a required four votes to open already, but let's not put the cart before the horse here ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]