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 discussion.

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

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: 03:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

• protecting and unprotecting pages
• deleting and undeleting pages
• blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

• (R. fiend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA))

This is being filed per this discussion on WP:ANI.

User:R. fiend, an administrator, has been repeatedly misusing his administrator tools to gain advantage on articles in which he is in dispute. Furthermore, he is being uncivil in the extreme, both in his edit summaries and his talk page comments, as well as showing disregard for his fellow editors and the community by not responding appropriately when his actions are questioned.

Desired outcome[edit]

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.

1. R. fiend needs to completely refrain from using his administrative tools on articles in which he is involved, even tangentially. This particularly applies to article protection. Instead, he should apply to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as any other editor should so that a neutral administrator can review the situation and act accordingly. This is how other administrators operate. He needs to understand the protection policy and what it covers.
2. R. fiend should also pay particularly close attention to the policy on civility, as administrators are obliged to follow this in the same way as any other editor. In ways, administrators should also be exemplars when it comes to civility, politeness and respect for their fellow-editors.
3. If R. fiend performs an administrative action for whatever reason and is requested to comment on it, he should do so rather than simply ignoring it.

Description[edit]

Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

Article protection[edit]

Incivility / communication[edit]

Blocking[edit]

Powers misused[edit]

• Protection (log):

1. Black Irish (log)
2. Patrick Pearse‎ (log)
3. Shaun Glass‎ (log)
4. As I Lay Dying (log)
5. Kevin Barry (log)
6. Easter Rising (log)

• Blocking (log):

1. User:Domer48 (log)
2. I don't believe the Ed Poor block should be added here as it was admittedly done in error. The issue was regarding communication.

Applicable policies[edit]

• Protection policy

• As detailed above

• Blocking policy

• As detailed above

• Civility policy

• As detailed above

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

1. This discussion on WP:ANI shows repeated attempts to resolve issues with this administrator.
2. This thread on his talk page re. the Patrick Pearse protect, and the subsequent response here.
3. This discussion re. the Kevin Barry article by User:Mercury was ignored.
4. Blocking of Domer48 was brought up here [48][49][50][51] but was left unresolved.
5. Link to original ANI discussion about R fiend using admin rights to edit a full-protected article [52]
6. Further examples provided in the diffs in previous sections above.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

1. - Alison ^❤ 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. For my (albeit small) part. – Steel 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this statement[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

1. SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rockpocket 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. – Steel 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Actually, I remain unconvinced by his explantation of his block of Ed Poor. I think that incident was a serious misuse of his admin tools. WjBscribe 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. --John (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. ^Avruchtalk 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. I almost never invoke WP:ROUGE, but this is one of the rare times where I feel it deserves to be. In particular, R. fiend's dismissive attitude to concerns from other editors to disputed admin actions he has performed is especially worrying; nobody can be expected to be perfect and to never make mistakes, but willingness to explain admin actions is the primary thing I would expect from any administrator. — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Lawrence Cohen 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Joe 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13.   jj137 ^♠ 03:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Looks like this could benefit from centralized discussion. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. R. fiend has behaved very poorly for a long time. Everyking (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Alison did a great job outlining the problem. There is definitely cause for concern, and the tone of the response below doesn't generate a lot of hope that he has taken this to heart. RxS (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. I echo the concerns of Rx StrangeLove above. Sandstein (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Alison has outlined the problem very well.--Padraig (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. As per RxS, and thanks to all the community. --Domer48 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. BigDunc (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Alison has done a lot of research to set out a long history of issues of concern, and none of R. fiend's recent replies show any interest in addressing the concerns of other editors. The caustic tone of the comments is wholly inappropriate for an admin, who should be willing to justify their actions politely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Having been blocked without explanation was very upsetting to me, as a user on probation. It prevents me from saying "I have not been blocked at all during the last 13 months." Rather, I must say 'I was only blocked once during this period, but it was apparently by mistake.' This weakens my chances of getting off parole, because many people won't check into the reasons but simply think, "Oh, he was blocked ... probably trying to weasel out of it" and not check any further.
    • If the ArbCom takes up this matter, I hope they will ask developers to remove the "erroneous block" from my 'blocking record' so I have a clean slate during my parole period. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. The remedies listed at "Desired outcome" are no way vindictive or punitive but merely re-iterating what we expect from good Admins anyway, so I support this. Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Okay, I'm not going to spend too much time on the older stuff, as it's not fresh in my mind and I'm not terribly inclined to delve into the past in great detail. As for semi-protection, it is a useful tool for thwarting vandals and the like (at least in the short term) without actually preventing regular editing of the article, and without a load of unnecessary red tape. Anyone can get around it in a couple of days, in any case. In terms of the Pearse article, I spent a great deal of time discussing the issues on the talk page, as will be evident with a short glance in that direction. I'm not going to apologize for my actions at such entries as As I Lay Dying, as I have little patience for people who want to promote their favorite band over infinitely more significant works of literature. I would have been willing to discuss it, had anyone cared to approach me about it, but no one ever brought it up until now.

I don't want to dwell too much into the interactions with Domer either. Suffice to say, as soon as I differed with him on an issue involving Irish Republicanism, he took personal offense, and engaged in an incessant string of puerile behavior. It's been downhill from there. Many other editors have made note of his behavior and personal attacks. (Following a short period when it seemed me was developing some maturity, I actually tried to intervene on his behalf following a block he was given for edit warring. For my efforts I was met with further hostility) In any case, I'll address the matter of the Kevin Barry article briefly. If I recall correctly, there was a series of reversions going on, mostly because Domer doesn't write very well. I temporarily protected the article to put the breaks on the edit warring and force the issue to the talk page, which I figured would be more productive than seeing Domer blocked for 3rr (which was imminent), and would have prevented discussion of the matter. The result of the discussion was improvement of the article.

The most recent "dispute" (the one that led to this RfC), fixing a typo and correcting some blatantly ridiculous link formatting, I'm not going to bother with. It's beyond petty. That some editors decided to make an issue out of some of the least disputable corrections demonstrates that people seem to be more concerned with whining than making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. If anyone actually believes for a second that the two "controversial" edits did not improve the article, please say so. If they did benefit the article, don't complain.

That's all I have time for at the moment. I'll respond to the rest later. -R. fiend (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Into the latter goes the edit that brought this RfC. There was a request on the talk page of Easter Rising for a day outlining some errors that need correcting. No one took any action on them. I thought the easiest and most productive thing to do would be to do the fix myself, as there was nothing controversial about them. As one editor pointed out, there was one potentially controversial element of the request, and I did not make that change for that reason (though I would be in favor of it happening eventually). I could have spent about ten times as much time and effort looking for a neutral admin who happened to be online, spelling out exactly what should be done and what might be too controversial to do, trying to point out exactly where in the article the one misspelled word was, and making sure it was done. Instead I did it myself, thinking no one would be petty enough to complain about replacing "RTEPrincess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) Eoin Neeson" with "Eoin Neeson" and correcting the spelling of "spirit". Of course I was wrong. People can be very petty, as it turns out. The edit was not just "harmless", is was beneficial. No one has denied that. People really should have better things to do than complain about improvements to articles.

The previous occasion on which I edited the article is different. While the article was protected, I proposed 3 changes to be made. I was given to go ahead on one, so seeing there appeared to be a consensus, I made the change, and put a note on the talk page saying I made an agreed upon alteration, and people should discuss if there was a problem with the edit and I would revert if there was. I was immediately attacked by a cadre of editors who insisted I had acted out of line and must revert immediately. I asked what the problem with the edit was, as it seemed there was agreement on it, and the only problem anyone could pinpoint was who made it. I reverted it anyway, and it was only a day or so after that that anyone actually said they had an issue with the way I phrased something.

As for matters of civility, well 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. People looking for warm and fuzzy should probably go elsewhere [by which I mean, look for a more cheerful person if you want to interact with shiny happy people; I am not saying "leave Wikipedia"]. That being said, when treated civilly, I have always responded with cilvility. However, I do have little patience for idiocy and, for lack of a better word, "douchebaggery". Yes, clearly the "fascist censorship" 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. It was also not a personal attack. Nor is the comment "whoop-de-fucking-do" when removing annoyances from my own talk page (I am wondering if the "fucking" had been omitted if it would have been an issue, the meaning is basically the same in either case). The 3rr violations I was being warned about was a baseless accusation which wasn't worth my time, as evidenced by it's rejection on both occasions.

The Segi issue has some legitimacy, I'll admit. My involvement in Segi was minor, but I did have some involvement, so it might have been better if I had reported it over at 3rr, rather than doing it myself. It the process were a bit easier that would be a more likely result. I'm pretty certain that there is no rule saying all 3rr's have to be reported there. I've been blocked twice (apparently by people who can't count to 3 too well) for 3rr, I believe without them bring reported beforehand, only to have them overturned. In any case, the block was seen as legit by all parties when Domer tried to appeal it, and it was upheld. The end result would have been the same with either action.

As for lack of communication, I don't think I can really be accused of that when editing articles. I get into very long discussions at times over improvements when there is controversy (as can be witnessed at the Easter Rising talk page, to name an obvious example). I dismissed the AN/I because at the time there were only 2 comments, and I really didn't see it going anywhere. I didn't expect to be thanked for making some needed corrections to an article when no one else was doing it, but I really thought that the idea of complaining about good edits was not going to be given much creedence. When it was clear that people were taking issue, I got involved in the discussion. There have been other things brought to my talk page that I have not responded to, I'll admit, and I'm unaware of any policy that says I have to respond to everything. In most of those cases, I believe, the matter in question was settled by the time I got the questions/comments, so I didn't see much point in going back to them.

Again, this is taking quite a bit of my time. So I'll stop here for now and look over the issue a bit later and perhaps say more then. -R. fiend (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. R. fiend has been provoked into doing much of what he has been accused of, as Scolaire outlines below. R. fiend has been right to challenge one user (Domer48) from singularly imposing one writer's (Eoin Neeson) opinions on Irish history across a number of articles. As has been pointed out, Eoin Neeson is not a "reputable historian"; he is a journalist, as his newspaper byline describes him. He does not engage with the historical community, his books are rarely, if ever, cited by reputable historians, he does not attend coferences, nor does he publish in academic history journals.[53] Domer48 treats this book as gospel, and this has been the cause of many of the edit wars on a number of articles, particularly Easter Rising, Irish Volunteers. Yet, Neeson has been proved to be wrong on a key factual point,[54] something Domer48 has been uncharacteristically mute about.[55] Indeed, if the guidelines laid down by the Wikipdia Miltiary History project were followed in this case,[56] Neeson would never be used as a reference, and certainly not to the extent that he has by Domer. Domer48 has a clear agenda on Wikipedia; he does not deny he has POV. He sees himself as engaging in some kind of battle, a party soldier, even using the words of Tom Williams to urge his fellow travellers along.[57] It's his behaviour that should be examined here, not the contributions of a long-serving and valuable contributor.--Damac (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am informed that it is in order for a statement by non-neutral party that is neither pro nor anti to be added here[58].
Clearly I cannot endorse R. fiend's response, because that would mean accepting that he can do as he pleases, but neither will I endorse the proposal, because of the way it has come about. Of the two parties in a dispute that ranges across several articles, R. fiend is by far the more reasonable: he argues every one of his points in a coherent and reasoned (if occasionally caustic) manner, and is receptive to any coherent or reasoned arguments that are put to him. In return he has been subjected to persistent bullying and abuse (as have I, whenever I have attempted to mediate). The opposing party knew well that if they taunted and goaded him enough he would do something stupid, and they would be able to bring him down. And that is how this RfC has arisen. Censuring R. fiend here will sent a message back to these people that bullying will work, that it is approved of by editors and admins alike, and that they are now free to OWN whatever articles they are working on. Diffs from Easter Rising alone: examples of aggressive behaviour are here[59], here[60], here[61], here[62], here[63], here[64] (love the edit summary!), here[65], here[66], here[67] and here[68]. Examples of gratuitous taunting are here[69], here[70] and here[71]. Typical edit summaries are here[72], here[73], here[74], here[75], here[76], here[77], here[78] and here[79]. On the face of it, these edit summaries are a model of restraint compared to the "fascist censorship" summary of R. fiend, but used over and over in this way, without regard to the reasoned arguments put forward by the other editor, they are an insidious form of bullying aimed at the editor's self-esteem, and specifically designed to drive him over the edge. In my case its effect was to drive me out of WP altogether for six weeks – and if it's not addressed I won't be staying long on this occasion either – in R. fiend's case it has led directly to this RfC. And before you dismiss this as conspiracy theory, here it is in black and white[80], outlined to a fellow-editor in December. When the infamous Vintagekits arbitration was initiated in August 2007 I stated that "to come down hard on somebody who doesn't know where to draw the line, while those who know how to "play the game" get off scot-free, would be very unfair" [81] That view was endorsed when the arbitration was re-named The Troubles and the behaviour of all the involved editors was examined. I am saying that this case is exactly the same and that exactly the same injustice is in danger of being done. I accept and respect that those who brought and endorsed this RfC did it for the best possible motives (with a couple of exceptions in the case of endorsers), but I ask every one of you to carefully consider the consequences of your actions. Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. I agree that more than one editor has behaved inappropriately here. --John (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Aatomic1 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes, many participants of The Troubles ArbCom regularly skirt the fringes of tendentious editing, with an ongoing history of 3RR and civility problems. But there is a remedy in place from that ArbCom that can be used to address that. These can be difficult editors to work with, however this is all the more reason that an Admin should avoid using the tools in an editing dispute, and remain calm and civil in the face of, what can sometimes be, provocation. Rockpocket 21:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. sony-youth^pléigh 02:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self described snide bastards should reflect if being an admin is right for them. And it's certainly not up to him to tell people to go "elsewhere" if they can't handle him being uncivil. Being civil and open to communication is an important (if not critical) part of being an admin and R. fiend doesn't seem to be getting that. There's an arrogant tone to his responses, and he throws words like "idiocy" and "douchebaggery" around a little too freely (well much too freely). We're not looking for "warm and fuzzy", admins are expected to be civil and forthcoming about their actions. Indeed, that's mostly what people are looking for here and if he can't rise to that standard he might need to consider if him being an admin is appropriate.

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]

I'll respond on the talk page. RxS (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Endorse wholeheartedly. See also my statement below, which was caught in an edit conflict wit this one. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Padraig (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4.   jj137 ^♠ 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I endorse this, but please also see my comment on the talk page. --John (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Everyking (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Domer48 (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. BigDunc (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. - Alison ^❤ 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even setting aside the past history, the responses here by R.fiend suggest to me that R.fiend is not a fit and proper person to be an admin.

1. In R.fiend's first response, above, his description of the dispute with Domer shows a unnecessarily hostile attitude:

   Suffice to say, as soon as I differed with him on an issue involving Irish Republicanism, he took personal offense, and engaged in an incessant string of puerile behavior. It's been downhill from there. Many other editors have made note of his behavior and personal attacks. (Following a short period when it seemed me was developing some maturity, I actually tried to intervene on his behalf following a block he was given for edit warring. For my efforts I was met with further hostility).

   I have had plentiful dealings with Domer48 (talk · contribs), who edits in a highly controversial areas which have been the subject of edit wars, and while I have disagreed with many of his actions and (AFAICR) issued a few 3RR warnings, I find it unaccepatbly rude to simply dismiss his behaviour as "puerile". That is the sort of language which one might expect from an edit warrior, but it is not appropriate for someone using admin tools, because it is the sort of language which escalates a dispute rather than resolving it or limiting the damage it causes.
2. His further comment

   The most recent "dispute" … I'm not going to bother with. It's beyond petty …people seem to be more concerned with whining than making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. If anyone actually believes for a second that the two "controversial" edits did not improve the article, please say so. If they did benefit the article, don't complain.(… indicates text cut by BHG)

   R.fiend has been repeatedly asked not to use admin tools to edit protected articles in which he is party to a dispute. It would have been quite reasonable for him to have explained here why he thought his actions were acceptable, to to acknowlege that there now appears not to be consensus for this, but instead he dismisses all criticism as "whining"
3. R.fiend's second response, above, opens

   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.

   ... so in other words the only two categories are "Yes I was wrong", and "unfounded". That's a very aggressive distinction, which presumes that those charges with which R.fiend disagrees are either fabricated or malicious or delusional — there is no acceptance of the possibility of any grey area or of any good faith on the part of those supporting this RfC.

This sort of hostile, assume-no-good-faith approach gives admins collectively a bad name, and makes life more difficult for everyone trying to maintain a friendly editing environment in wikipedia.

I would therefore like to ask R.fiend to consider voluntarily relinquishing his adminship now , and considering after this RfC whether he wishes to reapply through a new RFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. --Padraig (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. - I support asking R. fiend to voluntarily relinquish is admin status, and go back to RFA if he so desires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Same as Rjd. Voluntarily removing his adminship and maybe going through another RfA at a later date is probably the best course of action.   jj137 ^♠ 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I support anyone who does anything voluntarily - but if it is under coersion it is not voluntary. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   PS I feel this whole RFC has been framed in a coercive manner. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Unlike arbcom, an RfC has no coercive powers; it's just an attempt at dispute resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In the same way that a Lynch mob has no coercive powers - which are monopolised by the judiciary. Aatomic1 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. R Fiend's statement disturbs me. When good number of uninvolved and experienced editors notes your administrative actions and behaviour appear to be problematic, the appropriate response is consider those concerns in good faith, not to respond with hostility. If you consider that the community should simply accept that you will be a "snide bastard" in administering your sysop duties at times, then I would also ask you consider putting that to the community directly. Rockpocket 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Considering the other option that we had was to take it to ArbCom, and the likely binding remedies there (especially considering his answers that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior), this is hardly coercive. If the behavior continues after this RfC, it might go there anyway. SirFozzie (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   ...hmm how long did you consider available options? Aatomic1 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Twelve minutes if my arithmetic is right. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. The admitted incivility is a problem, and the attitude isn't the sort of person that should be tasked with helping to keep or enforce the peace at times. Lawrence Cohen 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. BigDunc (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Probably the best course of action... Jmlk17 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sadly, this appears to be necessary to allay the community's justifiable concerns. — Coren ^(talk) 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. I have not had confidence in R. fiend's judgment as an admin for some time. WjBscribe 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. I endorse this, but please also see my comment on the talk page. --John (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. I set a high bar for admin behavior and I don't think it is being met here. Ronnotel (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Everyking (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Obviously a lot of this persistent behaviour pre-dates ant interaction with me. --Domer48 (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Reluctantly, yes - Alison ^❤ 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with point one of the desired outcome. I believe that there is nothing wrong with the edit (later two edits) that was (were) the basis for the ANI post and eventually this RfC. There's not (AFAIK), but if there were a rule that forbade him from fixing the embedded links and the typo, he should have ignored it. There is no problem with unquestionably improving a protected article while not altering content that is actively under debate.

I do, however, agree with points two and three. WODUP 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Especially when asked to do so by a neutral editor on the talk page, although prudence might have led him to ask another admin. Nevertheless I endorse. Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not even necessary to ask another admin to fix typos. He didn't make what would have been a controversial edit, changing "noted historian" (unsupported POV!) to "writer" (factual). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary drama. This means in practice not only only acting reasonably, but also acting in a manner that minimizes the chances of a pointless and unproductive drama. To this end, admins should avoid using their buttons in any manner that could easily be misconstrued. Accordingly, the question shouldn't be whether R. fiend abused a position of trust, but whether his actions were prudent. Based on his editing of 'troubles' related articles, I'm fairly confident his actions were, in hindsight, a mistake. Accordingly, I think he should clearly state that he isn't going to use the tools in connection to articles he has edited.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. I have a lot of sympathy for R fiend, not least because his reactions to annoyance and quick responses on occasion are rather similar to my own. But I would not remotely want, or consider myself temperamentally suited to being, an Admin! So much provocation; so little patience. Why does a "don't-suffer-fools-gladly" kinda guy like R even want to be an Admin? Anyway, I wouldn't say this is a hanging offence so I'd go with the "desired outcome" and with Addhoc's proposal but would oppose going any further this time. Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now nearly four days since this RfC was opened, and it seems that little progress has been made:

1. R.fiend has not taken up the suggestion to voluntarily step down as an admin, and seek re-endorsement at a fresh RFA. He is of course quite entitled to decline that suggestion, but it is one solution not taken up
2. Some of his comments on the talk page have offered a small hint of a softening of his approach,[82] but other comments accuse critics of misrepresenting him without offering any evidence in support of that assertion[83]. As noted by Alison[84], R.fiend shows no sign of any willingness to agree to (for example) stop editing protected articles where he is a party to the dispute.
3. R.fiend has not commented on the proposal by Addhoc that it woukd be sufficient for R.fiend to "clearly state that he isn't going to use the tools in connection to articles he has edited".
4. His latest reply repeats the insistence that it was right and proper of him to edit a protected article where he was a party to the dispute, because the change made was a small one.[85]

Finally, R.fiend's commented yesterday on the talk page, inviting everyone to watch a Monty Python video and concludes "if people want to take this to arbcom it's entirely up to them".

After requests on his talk page, an ANI discussion, and several days of fruitless discussion here, I now see no prospect of any assurances from R.fiend which would encourage me to revise or withdraw my statement above that "R.fiend is not a fit and proper person to be an admin", so I think that the time has now come to take up R.fiend's suggestion[86] and open a request for arbitration on his misuse of admin tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. - I think it's time for arbitration, as this editor refuses to see the problem and had basically gone back to ignoring discussion here until this morning. The Monty Python reference is just 'taking the piss' now, if you'll pardon. I'll help file a case there if needs be, but note that I won't be necessarily going for de-sysopping, just enforcement of the above remedies, however the Arbitration Committee would intend to do that (parole or whatever) - Alison ^❤ 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Domer48 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. --MurphiaMan (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. If he still thinks he hasn't done anything that needs changing, we might as well go to arbcom, because he's not getting the point, and maybe ArbCom will help get that through... SirFozzie (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Padraig (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Unfortunately. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. That is, indeed, unfortunate. I was still hoping he'd understand that editing a protected page in which a dispute is taking place and where is his a participant in the dispute is not acceptable regardless of what the edit is. Rather than defend the edit, he should have been promising to refrain in the future. Perhaps the AC will make him understand the impropriety of that action. — Coren ^(talk) 01:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. As someone said earlier (can't remember exactly who), this has gone from talk page → ANI → RfC, and there has been little or no productive progress. Unfortunately ArbCom may be the best way from here.   jj137 ^♠ 02:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. BigDunc (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just happpened across this page. Swearing in edit summaries, blatant misuse/ excessive use of page protection, especially inappropriate when he is involved in the articles; especially for the sweariong, this user should be blocked for a while, that's for sure. Merkinsmum 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

I came here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend utterly appalled and ready to leave a stern message about the duties of administrators to the community. The only thing I had to do was make my mind up over whether R. fiend should be stripped and horse-whipped or tarred and feathered ... hmmmm ... but everyone deserves a chance, I guess - so let's hear what the man has to say for himself before we lynch him good! It was then that I saw who was the other editor involved ... Domer48.

Administrators should have more sense, it's true; but administrators are human too, and from my experience of Domer48, he is utterly exasperating. The most minor and matter-of-fact of edits can suddenly blow up and disappear down a rabbit hole of surreal arguments and demands. This is what seems to have happened here. If R. fiend had blocked Domer48 indefinately in a fury, it would be wrong, but I wouldn't blame him. It's mere "guilty but temporarily insane" due the most extraneous of factors. Honestly, I'd side more for comforting R. fiend following his experiences - have a cup of cocoa, it's okay, the crazy man has gone away now, the twitching will subside in time.

(As for the other stuff, from my view of the situation, it looks like dirt raked up to bulk up the case against him and based on nothing more than his block and protection logs. It's unrelated to the meat of the situation. It's actually not so worrying. It's just "other stuff".) --sony-youth^pléigh 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

• Well said! Aatomic1 (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. fiend has stated he is voluntarily giving up his administrator bit link to diff of him relinquishing his admin bit. While I cannot apologize for what led to this point, I do applaud his actions. SirFozzie (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.