Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Case Resolved
1) Since R. fiend has stated his desire to voluntarily resign as an administrator, the case can be resolved with the following findings:

A) R. fiend resigned his administrator bit under controversial circumstances, and must go through a fresh RfA to get it back. B) R. fiend's block of User:Ed Poor was in error, and the block should be stricken from User:Ed Poor's record, or a note placed in Ed Poor's block log that the block was in error.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If R. fiend resigns as he has indicated he is considering, I would support a motion along these lines. Actually, even if the case were just dismissed without findings, a user who resigned while the subject of an arbitration case still could not be resysopped without a new RfA, per Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Paul August &#9742; 06:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A, as this is clearly the case; perhaps it is worth saying that it must be an RFA and not an appeal to the Arbcom. As regards B, the block was inappropriate but the only time a block log has actually been erased was Giano and by the time the log was erased, the damage had been done. Users should not look at block logs in a superficial way but should examine the circumstances. A high profile notice that this block was incorrect, added to Ed Poor's block log on behalf of the committee, ought to be sufficient here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've offered a motion on /Proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed - I applaud his action, it saves time and means we can clear up this rather quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I'd especially like to see a statement from ArbCom re. the Ed. Poor block - A l is o n  ❤ 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support --Padraig (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --Domer48 (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support both A and B. I don't yet see any indication that R.fiend has actually resigned yet, but once that's done, it seems that this can be wrapped up quickly. I think that we should also thank R.fiend for his consideration in allowing this arbcom case to be wrapped up quickly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * R.Fiend has on his talk page spoke of conditions. The resignation request at the meta requests for permissions page needs to be unequivocal and unambiguous. It cannot be phrased conditionally so as to put a steward in the position of needing to make a judgement call about matters. If R.Fiend wishes to put conditions on the resignation, I feel he needs to get them satisfied before making the request at meta. That is my opinion as a steward, and although I do not necessarily speak for all stewards, I feel it is in accordance with steward principles. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A shame it came to this. Rockpock  e  t  20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support but with major reservations. I have some sympathy for the outside view of sony-youth here. It seems unjust that Domer48 and other problematic editors should walk away without censure as they helped create this situation. I support R fiend's honorable decision to stand down, but I worry that it sends an unhelpful message to the edit-warriors on Irish articles; they have in effect achieved the de-adminship of an administrator they disagreed with via a kangaroo court, without any criticism of their own actions. It also looks particularly bad that another user was given a free pass when he was abusive and threatened physical violence towards others when he was drunk, whereas in this case a different standard has seemingly been applied. I have made clear all along my unhappiness with some of R fiend's actions, and I am not defending them now. This just feels, in the big scheme of things, somehow wrong. --John (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that other user got a free pass for his bad conduct; he was blocked for several weeks, and is now on probation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * without attempting to open old arguments, a majority of the actions that were considered questionable in this case were not because of actions of "edit warriors" from previous cases. Ed Poor's block for example, or the inappropriate protects locking out anonymous IP editors without consensus. Personally, I'm rather disappointed, John, that you apparently consider myself, Alison, Brown Haired Girl, and some of the other 16 editors who suggested that R. fiend should step down during the RfC a "Kangaroo Court" SirFozzie (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am not defending R fiend's conduct, but rather saying that this may send the wrong message to the group of editors which causes so much trouble, which helped precipitate the end-game of this issue by their behaviour, and who now seemingly walk away free. As regards R fiend's admission that he edited and performed admin actions when drunk to the extent of not remembering afterwards what he had done, I would like to have seen more sympathy extended to someone with a medical problem like this, just as we routinely extend to those with other ailments. "Kangaroo courts are judicial proceedings that deny due process in the name of expediency", and I'm afraid that remains my perception of this process. --John (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * John, I too have sympathy for R fiend, as you and I (not to mention a number of other people commenting here) know how difficult it can be to deal with problem editing on Troubles related articles. However, I don't see anything proposed here as an endorsement of the behaviour of anyone else. Ultimately, R fiend chose a poor course of action, on a number of occasions, to deal with what he saw as a problem. That was the basis for the RfC and an opportunity for him to assess the feelings of the community and adjust accordingly. When that didn't appear to happen we find ourselves here. The outcome of this, for me, says nothing about whether there was problems with other editors or not. If there was, then perhaps that deserves an RfC or the editors could be placed on probation per the ArbCom decision. Ultimately, if editors take heart from this as a "victory" for edit-warring then they will be on a problematic path themselves. Rockpock  e  t  23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. --John (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Who are these edit warriors you keep refering to, I ask R. fiend to not edit articles protected an number of times when he himself was involved in those disputes, I also pointed out to him that his doing so could be seen as a abuse of his admin privilages, he choice to ignore those requests and advice. His attitude has brought about this whole issue, an attitude that he continued to display right until it reached here.  This would never have happened if he had adknowledge he made mistakes and agreed not to repeat them.--Padraig (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me? If so, nobody specifically. I'm saying that if there were problems with other editors edit-warring, then there are ArbCom remedies that can be implemented. I don't see that this case needs to address that. Rockpock  e  t  23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I too agree with John in that R. fiend's actions were only part of the situation. Limiting action here to his resignation, will not send a complete message regarding the entire discussion. A definitive response from ArbCom regarding this subject has the capacity to quell future problems, or at least limit them. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I possibly refer John to this post I made during the request for comment on R. fiend. Now why not take the bull by the horns and open a RfC, and I will address your concerns. I do not for one minute see myself as one of the downtrodden Son's of Eirn. Now rather than vent your spleen here in the hope that someone else takes the initiative, why not you. I'm sure sony-youth will show some sympathy, though it could be considered a personal attack. Damac also, as will Scolaire, Aatomic1 and Bastun. Because what you all have in common in this matter, and highlighted by Fozzie is that the "majority of the actions that were considered questionable in this case were not because of actions of "edit warriors" from previous cases." Now I have moved on from this, and you have not. John, that you consider Fozzie, Alison, Brown Haired Girl, and some of the other 16 editors who suggested that R. fiend should step down during the RfC a "Kangaroo Court," looking at your support base, I will no doubt face an actual "Kangaroo Court." Even so, I would find it preferable to this constant sniping and continuous finger pointing, in the interest of everyone, open the RfC and address your perceived injustice or stop crying about it. --Domer48 (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense guys, but this is probably not the proper forum to be discussing this. -R. fiend (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your quite right R. fiend sorry about that. I have left a post here for John, and awaite a responce. --Domer48 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Statement by R. fiend

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I hope I am doing this in the right place...
 * Well, I think I know where this is going. As I said before, I don't have the free time I had just a week or so ago, and I would really rather be doing other things with what I do have. I think one of the interesting comments to come out of the RfC was from Sarah777, who wondered why someone like me ever wanted to be an admin. That's a much better question than I realized at the time. The general reason I wanted the position in the first place was to take care of deletions and to block vandals. On reflection, I've done little of either in quite some time, and with my dearth of free time in the future, I don't think it's about to pick up. So maybe adminship isn't really important to me anymore. The best case scenario I can see from this is continuing to edit with a Sword of Damocles over my head, and I'd rather not have to deal with that. I have better things to do with my time than be involved in this process, I'm sure the other involved parties must, and from looking at the Arbcom page, it seems clear Arbcom does as well. So if it will put this matter to rest, and if it will save the trouble of going any further into this process, I'll step down as an administrator, and it would be highly unlikely I will seek it again.


 * I appreciate the time people have people have put into this, and the support I did receive (albeit limited). I think it should go without saying that my block of Ed Poor should not be held against him in any way (though I imagine it is not possible to remove all traces of it from the software). Anyway, I guess it will be a relief not to be held to higher standards than the general masses here. Thank you. -R. fiend (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the general discussion section (from motions), for...well...general discussion. If a motion is made to dismiss the case based on actions you take in relation to this statement, then it will be done in the motions section. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've posted a proposed motion above, please review it and sign off on it? SirFozzie (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * If R has resigned then I congratulate him! Both on his judgement and for the fact that he is no longer expected to behave like an angel. And I have to say that he did it in a gracious manner. Sarah777 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And, not sure of the process or where I should be suggesting this but if it is confirmed that R has resigned then he has gone well beyond what was asked of him at the RfC and I would strongly urge the case be simply closed. Sarah777 (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: