Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rjanag



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

Statement of the dispute
Over the past year, Rjanag (an admin; FKA "Politizer") has engaged in a pattern of serious, persistent misconduct: dozens of instances of untruths, incivility, personal attacks, profanity, wikihounding, bad faith, bullying, edit warring, gaming the system, hidden conflict of interest, and admin tools misuse. These have been coupled w/his failure both: (a) to admit he engaged in such misconduct; and (b) to apologize for such misconduct.

This RfC follows an RfA, concerning the same conduct, at which a number of arbitrators suggested this RfC be brought.

In addition, at the Draeco ANI closing admin Wehwalt suggested dispute resolution or "avenues such as an RfC". Rjanag responded: "Epeefleche et al are welcome to start one."

Desired outcome

 * Users discuss wider issues they see w/Rjanag’s conduct.


 * Rjanag understands (and states unequivocally that he understands) that his untruths, incivility, personal attacks, profanity, wikihounding, bad faith, bullying, edit warring, gaming the system, hidden conflict of interest, and admin tools misuse detailed in the RfA and 4 ANIs constitute problematic prohibited misconduct.


 * Rjanag promises to stop (and in fact stops) engaging in untruths, incivility, personal attacks, profanity, wikihounding, bad faith, bullying, edit warring, gaming the system, hiding conflict of interest, and admin tools misuse.


 * Rjanag voluntarily limits his work on the articles mentioned in the prior RfA and 4 ANIs (and on other articles involving the named editors) to making suggestions on their talkpages.


 * Users share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that be necessary.

Description
This concerns misconduct detailed in "Statement of the dispute" above, and "Evidence of disputed behavior" below. It includes statements by and diffs relating to Tony1, Draeco, Kiac, Greg L, HWV258, DGG, Seresin, Alefbe, NBeale, Simon Dodd, Nja247, Nfitz, Gimmetrow, RockMFR, Garden, Patton 123, Neurolysis, Ottava Rima, Juliancolton, RxS, and me.

I share the hope voiced by Administrator Risker that this RfC will consist of good faith comments. I note that the 4 ANIs and the RfA (brought by 5 different editors) were marked by some editors ignoring Rjanag's behavior, and instead attacking the complainants.

We've notified all editors who participated in or were mentioned in the RfA or this RfC (early today), as well as all who participated in any of the 4 Rjanag ANIs (now—even if they did not discuss Rjanag's conduct). Some ANI contributors on both sides of the issue, or who participated in an ANI without addressing Rjanag's conduct, were not notified in the first wave, but in the second wave today.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Evidence of his misconduct has been presented at:


 * 1) the prior RfA;
 * 2) the Draeco/ Shells ANI;
 * 3) the Alefbe/ Admin tools misuse ANI;
 * 4) the Dodd/ "Go fuck yourself" ANI; and
 * 5) the Rima/ “if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You fucking moron” ANI.

While all the diffs can be seen by clicking through to the ANIs and RfA, for ease of review they are set forth below:


 * Incivility (including personal attacks and profanity):
 * Wrote: "You can go fuck yourself".
 * Wrote another editor: "You can go fuck yourself."
 * Wrote: “if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You fucking moron”
 * Wrote: "you need to shut the fuck up."
 * Edit summary: "bitch".
 * Edit summary: "then do a checkuser, bitch".
 * Called editor an “idiot”;
 * Called editor’s comments “inane”.
 * Said (in the alternative) that editor “lack(s) the faculties” to understand his messages;
 * Wrote: “Apparently you may not be great in thinking”.
 * Wrote: “Apparently you can't read.”
 * Wrote: “Do you just not know how to read?”
 * Wrote: “learn how to read”.
 * Edit summary re editor: "pathetic"
 * Wrote: “grow up”.
 * Called editor “immature”.
 * Called editor “very immature”.
 * Wrote: “this is … a crappy article  crappy article”.
 * Wrote: "Your first [vote]... was hands-down the most useless comment in the entirety of that AfD."
 * RFA posting: "I hate Ottava Rima".
 * Admin admonished him: "I'm rather surprised you thought making this edit was appropriate, especially as an administrator....it was very poor form and reflects poorly on you".
 * Accused editor of “ranting”.
 * Wrote: “I ... sent it back to AfD, since you clearly want to hear how bad it is from a bunch of editors instead of just one”.
 * Post-RfA; Tells editor he is "useless to this project and should not be welcome here".


 * Untruths:
 * “all I see is three sentences in Seventeen”. (emphasis added). False.
 * “I never misrepresented the length of the 17 article”. False.  See above.
 * “The "Best Breakout New York Band" thing was not a competition they were involved in”. False.
 * ”the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award” … was never broadcast on national TV”. False.
 * ”the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award" … an AfD determined it was not notable”. False.  See here and here.
 * ”We're not really "arguing over whether the award is major"; it was already decided at AfD that it wasn't.” False. See above.
 * ”The first AfD for this page was disrupted by repeated ranting”. False—no evidence supports that.
 * ”the last AfD was closed as 'no consensus' (due mainly to the disruption)” . False-–see here and here
 * ”After the last AfD was closed … I waited about a month”. False—Actually, only 15 days.
 * ”The Examiner article you link … says nothing more than "they played at this thing" (and they're in the middle of a long list of other non-notable bands).” False—It says more than that, and there were only 3 other bands. See here and here.
 * With edit summary “not MTV”—“They were nominated for a little award that is only tangentially connected to MTV”. False.  See this and this and related discussion.
 * “Epeefleche's [comment] ... says nothing useful about this article and only focuses on trying to tear down people you consider 'deletionists'.” False.
 * ”"First Place Prize Winner" is just made-up fancy language”. False—It's MTV's language in MTV's Official Rules §14(a).
 * “no one has expressed an [sic] opposition here" to the proposal that the Written Roads album page be merged. False.
 * “MTV rubber-stamped it with their name but was not necessarily very interested in it.” False


 * Admin tools misuse:
 * Blocking. Edit-warring in a personal dispute, used admin powers to block editor.
 * Admin Rollback. Admin wrote him:  "you just used administrative rollback to revert his reverts, and then you blocked him—you used your administrative tools in a conflict dispute. That is, generously, wildly inappropriate."


 * Wikihounding & Bullying.
 * Wikihounded me to another editor's talkpage here. In edit summary attacking me, wrote “pathetic”.  Then tried to bully me into not reflecting notability of the article.  That prompted the editor whose talkpage he had followed me to (an editor who voted with Rjanag at the AfD) to chastise him:  "It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted".
 * Wikihounded me to my RfA entry, then (w/a “wtf” edit summary) tried on my talkpage to bully me into not asking questions at RfA. Wrote: “Are you going to go disrupting other people's AfDs and making POINTs just because you have a personal bone to pick with me?”  Then accused me of “disrupting Kww's RfA”.
 * Wikihounded editor to my talkpage, butting into his conversation and trying to bully him into not giving me advice: “You have already given Epeefleche inaccurate "advice" before; perhaps you should reconsider continuing.”


 * Bullying:
 * Editor questioned his speedy delete. In apparent retribution, 32 minutes later, Rjanag tagged him w/a 3RR notice for edits made on 3 separate days on an unrelated article.


 * Bad faith & Bullying. An example--his treatment of the Seventeen article.
 * As mentioned, in the first AfD he wrote untruthfully: “all I see is three sentences in Seventeen”. (emphasis added).
 * When I reflected the article's true size and content by quoting it, he tried to bully and embarass me, writing (responding to that and the rest of what I wrote): "Way too long." An editor intervened: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."
 * On Sept. 29, again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here.
 * When I corrected him, he chastised me for quoting the article.
 * On Oct. 3, wikihounded me to another editor's talkpage, and tried to bully me into not quoting the article in full.
 * He then avoided precision and disparaged its length in the 2nd AfD, calling it "tiny" on Oct. 13.
 * When I then quoted it at the 2nd AfD, on Oct. 14 he criticized me vociferously for quoting the entire (tiny) review: “epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is?” (NB:  He was the only "people" who had told me not to quote the entire (tiny) article.)


 * Edit warring/gaming the system.
 * Edit warred w/me in another article that he followed me to, and gamed the system (deleting sources reflecting notability, then adding unsourced text that would tend to suggest lack of notability on the basis that it comported with "everything I have been told", as detailed here.
 * Edit-warred w/other editor as well.


 * Non-revealed conflict of interest: Did not reveal uniquely close relationship w/AFD-closer. Backslash Forwardslash closed the second AfD before the full 7 days had run.  Similarly peculiar--he described a near-even vote as one in which "the delete voters ... had the numerical upper hand".  His timing and read of consensus (both in numbers and substance) left some editors perplexed.  Rjanag tried to create an impression after the close that the closer had no COI, writing Greg L: "That's the whole point of having uninvolved closers judge it'. (emphasis added'').


 * As we later learned, however:


 * Backslash nominated Rjanag to be an admin—in his first RfA support vote.
 * When Backslash was first up for admin, Rjanag was the only voter who voted for him terming his vote "Very strong support".
 * Rjanag didn't support any other admin candidates w/a vote he identified as "Very strong support".
 * In supporting Backslash in his second RfA, Rjanag was one of exceedingly few editors to challenge an Oppose voter's comments.
 * Backslash has written twice as much on Rjanag's talkpage as on any other.
 * Rjanag has written on Backslash's more than on those of all but Gatoclass.
 * Rjanag is so much Backslash's alter ego, he answers questions and handles requests posed to Backslash on Backslash's talkpage; even leaving a Backslash-page-talkback on another editor's talkpage.
 * Backslash appeared at the | Rima ANI, | Dodd ANI, and NBeale discussion, always arguing on behalf of Rjanag.


 * Reaction to complaints re his behavior:
 * “I'm just amused to see you guys shooting yourselves in the foot by obsessing over these personal battles … You can complain about me all you want; it won't do any good for the closing admin.”
 * ”oh goodness, sorry I got in the way of your efforts to spread The Truth to the poor unenlightened masses…Gosh, I feel so bad."
 * "I don't feel regret"
 * "to be honest, I don't see a need to apologize".
 * To NBeale, post-RfA: "I owe you no apology".

At the RfA, Rjanag wrote in his initial (since withdrawn) response, "all the [arbitration cases] I've seen are for...disputes that have gone on longer, span a larger part of the project". Similarly, Gatoclass said there had not been "evidence presented that [he] has demonstrated a pattern of misbehaviour outside the confines of this dispute." In response to those two points, the further misbehavior, all from the past year, has been presented.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * 1) Administrators
 * 2) Blocking policy
 * 3) Etiquette
 * 4) Harassment
 * 5) WP:WIKIHOUNDING
 * 6) No personal attacks
 * 7) Disruptive editing
 * 8) Edit warring
 * 9) Gaming the system
 * 10) Conflict of interest

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Twenty-one editors individually tried addressing his behavior w/him directly on talkpages and AfDs. Tony1 here, Draeco, Kiac here, HWV258 here, Greg L here and here, DGG here, Seresin here and here, Alefbe here, NBeale here and here, Simon Dodd here, Nja247 here, Nfitz here, Gimmetrow here, RockMFR here, Garden here, Patton 123 here, Neurolysis here. Ottava Rima here, Juliancolton here, and RxS here. I wrote him numerous times.

5 different editors brought the 4 ANIs and RfA this year. And this RfC is being brought at the suggestion of RfA arbitrators, a number of whom indicated they view his conduct as serious.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * 1) --Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC) (my further comments are as set forth at the RfA and at the the Draeco/ Shells ANI).
 * 2) --NBeale (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I can certainly attest for the portion I observed. Greg L (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) --Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I already left an apology at the rejected arbitration request, and have nothing more to do with this; other than Epeefleche and NBeale, all other involved editors there have moved on, and in fact I've already been making an effort to be more patient and understanding in dealings with other editors that I've run into since this all happened. I have nothing left to say to Epeefleche's other demands because, as I have already said repeatedly, I believe there was no other wrongdoing ("untruths", votestacking, etc.&mdash;again, I never contacted Backslash Forwardslash about the AfD in question and never deliberately hid anything about our relationship, have not lied about any facts in the AfDs Epeefleche is angry about, and I don't know what "edit warring" he's talking about) and I have already apologized for what there was. As for "staying away from the articles that started this", that has already happened, I have made a point of avoiding these editors since all this happened and I have already made a public statement that I would not be an active participant in any DRV they choose to raise. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, I will make two minor clarifications about some of the incorrect "evidence" Epeefleche has posted. About the use of "administrative rollback" with Alefbe... if you actually read the full discussion associated with that (don't worry, very brief), instead of just the one diff Epeefleche has posted, you will see that I did not use any "administrative rollback", and we're not even sure if such a thing exists. As for the Ottava Rima-related ANI... that occurred months before I as an admin (so there can be no "admin misconduct" there, by definition), I apologized for it a very long time ago and Ottava and I are long since over it (we have had several collegial interactions since then, not to mention he was the first editor to support me in my RfA). So those are irrelevant here. I also take issue with Epeefleche's repeated votestacking by selectively notifying only editors he thinks will be on his side here; for example, for the Simon Dodd ANI he's listed he notified every barely-involved editor who slapped me on the wrist there (Nja, Nfitz, Chillum, Causa Sui) but none of the editors there who defended my actions; I am sure he had done similarly for the other cases he listed. Votestacking in this way to continue an unconstructive vendetta is highly inappropriate. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition: I don't have time now to respond to all of Epeefleche's long list of diffs, and I don't see a need to respond to them all individually anyway. But some are clearly erroneous and/or vendetta fodder. Take, for example, his list of "untruths"... for every one, he gives a link that "proves" it false, and in every case (as far as I can tell) the link is to one of his own comments. I guess he's very confident in his own argumentative skills. But anyway, with a list like that, full of subjective opinions (about things like how substantial an article's coverage is, what the attitude at another AfD was, etc.), and refuted with nothing but Epeefleche's own opinions, it seems a bit inaccurate to call it a "list of untruths", and more like a "list of things Rjanag and I didn't agree about". (But it sounds a lot less sexy that way). For other things, I notice Epeefleche is still harping about my use of "administrative rollback", which I have already pointed out (with a link) I didn't use and in fact doesn't exist. And some of his diffs aren't even accurate... one of the mean things of mine that Epeefleche lists is calling an article "crappy", but the link he gives doesn't include that word anywhere. All in all, I agree with Black Kite (below) that many of Epeefleche's diffs don't hold water, and smack of being greedily gathered up to sew together an unnecessary RfC/U. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  ~ Paul T +/C 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside views
''{This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not edit this "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.}''

View by Ottava Rima
I am not Rjanag's fan, but I also don't like that my involvement with him was used above. It was minor and it was back in February.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Same sentiment, early October.  Gimmetrow 11:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Black Kite
I see that Epeefleche hopes "that the comments made at this RfC will consist of good faith comments". Looking at his statement of the dispute, he claims that "(Rjanag) has engaged in a pattern of serious, persistent untruths, incivility, personal attacks, profanity, wikihounding, bad faith, bullying, edit warring, gaming the system, hidden conflict of interest, admin tools misuse".

Since it's a "pattern" I would expect to see multiple diffs for all of these claims. What we have above, is a few diffs which relate to some of these claims (some of which aren't even convincing), and nothing resembling a pattern. If the filer is unable to substantiate such claims with sufficient evidence, they should either (a) concentrate (and amend their statement on) this RfC on what they can actually substantiate, or (b) withdraw it. At the moment, I suggest that this leans dangerously close to a vendetta, especially as Rjanag appears to be correct that the filer has selectively notified editors of this RfC (especially in the Simon Dodd ANI). I see that Epeefleche has belatedly (10 hours later) notified the other editors - the point stands though.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) . Black Kite 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) ~ mazca  talk 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) —  Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  05:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Diffs are needed for each specific claim of misconduct. Jehochman Talk 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) When I first saw the subject on AN/I, I commented that Rjanag's comment was certainly not the most respectful (he's been more polite than that), but not uncivil enough to warrant any sort of consequence other than a reminder to be polite. This RfC doesn't establish that there is a pattern of inappropriate behavior &mdash; in particular, I see no evidense of misusing admin tools.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  ~ Paul T +/C 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Quantpole (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) For the strength of the accusations, the evidence seems rather weak. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

View by Greg L
Before the AfDs over an article on a folk band, I don’t recall having ever crossed paths with Rjanag. I don’t recall having ever crossed paths with the complainant, Epeefleche, but must have, since he left a note on my talk page alerting me to the first AfD that Rjanag started. Once there, I was struck at his aggressive, confrontational style. I see from Rjanag’s above response, that he has an extreme desire to move on (sweep this all under the rug and pretend it’s all better now). It isn’t. I certainly don’t think he deserves to be grandfathered-in as an Admin because of the protracted hurdles people have to jump over when dealing with Wikipedia’s bureaucracy and the time it takes to wade through it all.

I had limited dealings with Rjanag on the first AfD regarding The Shells (folk band) as well as on the second AfD (after the outcome of the first wasn’t to his liking). He exhibited a confrontational, outright combative style that was not in the least representative of the behavior expected of Admins. He displayed all the tenacity of a pit bull hanging from the throat of bull in a ring and wouldn’t let go.

His “apologies” are not what I would classify as an apology by any stretch of the imagination. After being extraordinarily defiant in an RfA over his behavior, he struck his response there and replaced it with one that began with this:

After some thought, I'm offering Epeefleche and Greg L my apologies for unpleasant interactions that happened during the Shells AfD. While I do not believe I unfairly affected the outcome of the AfD, I acknowledge that my messages contributed to making the experience less enjoyable for all parties involved

That “apology” just reads like oh-so-much “Golly gee… there was so much vitriol there that was sorta unpleasant and apologize for having been part of it.”

His protestations that his dealings with Epeefleche had all been washed with unicorn tears engender no sympathy here. Now Rjanag’s response here appears to me to be a clear case of wikilawyering. He wrote that he “never deliberately hid anything about” his relationship with Backslash Forwardslash. Well, that’s just not good enough. Backslash Forwardslash was—and is—a good friend of Rjanag who was very supportive of him in the past. Rjanag should have canceled his closing of the second AfD and declared ''“Oops, sorry. Backslash Forwardslash is a good friend who means well but there is a conflict of interest here.”'' But, he didn’t.

It’s perfectly obvious why he didn’t so his stating that he didn’t “conceal” anything strikes me as playing all coy and innocent. It’s called a “lie through omission” after he got exactly what he wanted. I instantly recognized what was going on when I saw the Backslash Forwardslash’s closure of the second AfD, which was highly active after a week and was, at that moment, at a 13/11 split. Epeefleche had to wade through histories to sort out the relationship between Rjanag and Backslash Forwardshlash because Rjanag certainly wasn’t forthcoming with the information.

This whole thing started when other editors got in Rjanag’s face over non-free art being used in The Shells article and, at the end of that thread, he just brushed them all off with a dismissive response that amounted to “Yeah, well… the article is going to be deleted anyway.” After your choice little slap in the face to those editors there who had the temerity to challenge his authority on that thread, he ramped up the aggressive, confrontational style with anyone who disagreed with him on the two AfDs (and there were plenty of them).

I’ve seen his method of operation and don’t think his is up the the extra challenges and duties of being an Admin. In my opinion, he simply don’t have the honesty and maturity I would expect of a Wikipedia Admin. Moreover, his inability to “let go” leads to unnecessary and protracted confrontation on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby for contributing editors.

Why did I bother to weigh in here with this post? Although I am absolutely, 100% convinced Wikipedia will be far better off with Rjanag being blocked for one month, I have absolutely no expectation that he will even be de-sysoped over what I feel are colossal shortcomings whenever he deals with other editors. I simply wanted to get this into the record so the next time around he causes needless disruption and grief for some editor, there will be a more complete record here—along with this prediction: He will be called to the mat again in the near future and someone will link to this RfC. To them, I say this in advance: “I’m sorry I wasn’t able at this time to do a better job here.”

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) (As the author), Greg L (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) NBeale (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) --Nfitz (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

View by Draeco
As I stated at AN/I, I found Rjanag's behavior to be reprehensible, but he has since apologized (half-heartedly) and I suppose that will have to suffice. It seems to have placated outside commenters, and Wikipedia's bureaucratic grind has worn down many involved parties, myself included. I hope Rjanag will change his ways as promised; if not, I hope to God the community will actually recognize and react next time. Such behavior is poisonous to WP and cannot be allowed. Additionally, I caution editors not to declare an "Epeefleche vendetta"; he sought to right a legitimate wrong, but was redirected ad absurdum. - Draeco (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Draeco (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC) as author
 * 2) Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) NBeale (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Greg L (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Bearian (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Backslash Forwardslash
Surprisingly, I don't appreciate having my integrity questioned. I addressed Epeefleche's complaint here, but I note that he has not tried to take the closure to DRV. Yes, me and Rjanag are friends, that has never been denied, but it did not influence the closure; Epeefleche keeps forgetting about the other delete voters in that debate. If it was wrong it gets overturned at DRV, but instead of taking that step Epeefleche has decided to simply claim that it was closed due to a conflict of interest.

Epeefleche: Many of the incidents were before Rjanag was even an admin! Ottava Rima, the editor who Rjanag supposedly 'hates', supported Rjanag's near unanimous RfA. Yes, Rjanag has a temper, and yes, Rjanag needs to be a little more courteous, but the level of intent Epeefleche have displayed prosecuting Rjanag makes this whole thing little more than a vendetta. Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  ~ Paul T +/C 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) — Ched :  ?  15:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Baseball Bugs
Obscenities and snippy comments directed at users are inappropriate when a regular editor makes them, and unacceptable when an admin makes them. The subject of the complaint needs to rein that stuff in and put himself on the high road from here on out.


 * 1) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) NBeale (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Greg L (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) -- SKATER  Speak. 07:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) GRuban (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Rockstone   talk to me!   01:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Bearian (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Absolutely, knock the name calling crap out.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) I can see easily see how you might loose your cool once in a while, particularly in more or less "combative" situations. And God knows I'm not really in a position to criticize others on this matter myself. But it would definitely be a good idea to tone down the insults, however well-earned they seem to be. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Even though I think a lot of the claims are exaggerated and some unjustified (such as the claim of admin abuse), I understand the frustration of the RfC's instigator and I agree that there is some cause for concern here. I'll note that the subject is not an overall incivil person; he is a very good admin who is not above an occasional lapse in judgment (really, who is?), and once in a while he chooses questionable wording when faced with arguments he disagrees with, from editors who remain unconvinced by his reasoning (regardless of who is actually right). I like Rjanag, he just needs to work on maintaining his composure when his patience is tested.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 05:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Juliancolton
I was just informed that a comment of mine towards Rjanag was being used as evidence for this RfC. Whilst it's technically OK, I'm not sure I feel comfortable having my post to warn Rjanag glorified in this manner. I think it would be more effective to provide links that support the claims of a pattern of disruption rather than relatively isolated incidents here and there. just my two cents. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support
 * — Ched : ?  15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

View by Contains Mild Peril
To the best of my recollection I had no contact with Rjanag and minimal contact with Epeefleche prior to my participation in The Shells 2nd AfD discussion. I think we all have a responsibility to treat other editors with courtesy, respect and civility, and that administrators in particular should uphold exemplary standards. Administrators should be able to deal with situations and people they find difficult without resorting to incivility as Rjanag did: however I do appreciate his belated apology and his assertion (above) that he has since been making an effort to be more patient and understanding in dealings with other editors. I don't know the backgrounds to the other unrelated incidents which Epeefleche cites, but I don't think "you can go fuck yourself" is an appropriate phrase for any editor to use towards another, no matter what the provocation might be. Rjanag's "untruths" are varied: some are undeniable factual inaccuracies, e.g. the number of sentences in a review. Some could perhaps be said to be stretching the truth, e.g. "about a month" between AfD's when it was actually 15 days. Others can be put down to differing interpretations, e.g. "fancy made-up language" which Epeefleche pointed out was the wording used on the relevant official competition document. I personally don't consider fancy made-up language and official status to be mutually exclusive. I do find it somewhat disappointing that even now Rjanag is presenting only partial truths: Take, for example, his list of "untruths"... for every one, he gives a link that "proves" it false, and in every case (as far as I can tell) the link is to one of his own comments. I guess he's very confident in his own argumentative skills. In fact, some of Epeefleche's links are to other editors' comments (e.g. mine) or to external sites. Rjanag has evidently missed these yet still picked up on one mistake which Epeefleche made (and corrected after it was pointed out) in which he initially linked to the wrong conversation for Rjanag's "crappy article" comment. I hope we can all learn from the problems highlighted on this page and interact more positively in future.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talkpage for discussion
'{All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talkpage. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talkpage.}'''<!--