The first time I encountered him was on the Roc-A-Fella Records article where he was changing details, I thought it was someone harmless but this is where the bad part comes in, he keeps adding [1] and citing websites which have a questionable amount of notability. Primarily he has vandalized the article Nas and his albums. He has also been found to bump the album's rating by .5 and has also directly copied text from copyrighted sources. When he was banned, he created sockpuppets to evade his ban and he is now using his dynamic IP to evade his ban and also make him unbannable (since the IP's are numerous) The user's attitude is even worse. In my attempts of resolution, he kept bragging on about how he's a man and has pecks and how I'm just a guy in a mother's basement (I'm not). Even when I provided him links to Wikipedia policies and ways he can get himself unbanned, he just replied with a smirky remark. While he has promise, he is uncivil and ignorant and he is not fit to be a Wikipedian unless he changes his ways.

Statement by Explicit

Statement by JpGrB

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Decline. I understand the filing party's level of exasperation with this user's misbehavior and sockpuppetry. However, as the statement correctly notes, Rcool35 was blocked indefinitely a few months ago, and for the reasons stated above, is unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. Because the user is blocked indefinitely, any new accounts or IPs that he uses should also be blocked, especially if they continue engaging in the same misconduct that led to his being blocked in the first place. Because there doesn't appear to be any dispute that Rcool35 is unwelcome on Wikipedia and will stay blocked, I don't see what further meaningful action the Arbitration Committee could take, and therefore I don't think that there is an actual dispute for us to arbitrate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While I agree with your stance, none of the community has taken any action on him. I've made multiple requests on WP:ANI all of them ending with that he cannot be blocked, I've even posted his IP on WP:AIV and it went by unnoticed. While I have most of the pages he vandalizes on my watchlist, his IP changes daily and I don't have time to place every single IP he uses on WP:AIV. I'm just wondering if Wikipedia will do something about this. Taylor Karras (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you suggest we should do? If any checkusers with rangeblock expertise are reading here, please feel free to take a look into this situation and see if we can implement that without too much collateral damage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have drawn this discussion to the attention of one of the checkusers and asked him/her to review the information in this request to determine if preventative action may be appropriate. Risker (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.147.216.0/22 and 76.197.240.0/20 can be anon blocked without too much collateral. Those ranges should take cover the majority of the IPs the user has access to on their home connection. Brandon (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline - Concur with Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Wizardman 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Films and Wildhartlivie

Initiated by Maggiedane (talk) at 14:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

maggiedane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
User-multi error: "Wildhartlivie" is not a valid project or language code (help).

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff. 1
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There have been a few but I no longer have the links

Statement by Maggiedane

I have had it up to hear with user Wildhartlivie. It is a bully and seems to use policies at whim to its tastes. It has added two sites I work with forgetthetalkies.com and rudolphvalentino.org to a spam list and I am unsure how to undo this, Im not good with Wikipedia issues. I am particularly writing about rudolphvalentino.org which is not just MY site, but a site I do a lot with, others are involved. If the Louise Brooks Society or Buster Keaton Society should be allowed to link on wikipedia why not us? This is a relevant topic as they are in charge of The Film Festival in his name which is taking place at The Egyptian in Hollywood this May.

But its not just my sites this user is after. Sites they used to leave on silent film related articles (including goldensilents.com and silentladies/gents) they've begun to delete. These are not self publish/edit sites like they allege. Most of these (including the ones I am involved with) are done by people very knowledgeable and respected on the topic at hand. For example I tried to link to articles by Vilma Banky's biographer and Karl Dane's biographer on the rudolphvalentino.org and Livie ruled that as 'spam'. These are by published biographers who are not myself! Wikipedia is the real loser as these sites contain valuable info relevant to the articles found no where else. To boot Livie has had it so out for me that it has gone on reverting my edits immediately, even when using SOURCED book references complete with page numbers (this happened numerous times on the Hollywood Babylon article with which we've fought over many times and I was finally able to prove my case through other sources.) Thats the first one that comes to mind, but they've done it several other times as well. If you look at its edits you'll see a revert with even other members asking 'why did you do that?' It has never given an answer.

I would like to see a fair ruling, which Im skeptical about as I've found most people like to apply policies to their own tastes, and not by the set rules (such as being able to include links relevant to the topic but not able to put in the article).

Statement by Wildhartlivie

First of all, this is the second filing by this editor within a 12 hour period - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolph Valentino was rejected by MedCab because no other steps in the dispute resolution process has been attempted, and this is the second request that the editor has failed to inform me about. There has been no third opinion sought, although others have also supported problems with the sites. There has been no request for comments sought, nor has there been an accepted request for informal mediation. This is premature and unwarranted. And for the record, I do not appreciate being referred to as "it" or "they". Nor do I appreciate personal attacks such as this one posted at Talk:Rudolph Valentino in which maggiedane declared that "Wildhartlivie needs to be done away with. I am not done fighting this as it is just sickening. You have a real problem dear." Yes, my problem is that I am weary of constantly having to remove her blog from articles. Forgetthetalkies.com is blatantly a blog.

Secondly, this is solely about sites that violate WP:EL. forgetthetalkies.com is a blog site operated by Maggiedane, who has also edited on Wikipedia under the username thegingerone, which is still registered and last used in July for editing. It was taken to WP:NOR/N and the response was that her self-published blog was considered original research and therefore inappropriate. It was taken to WP:RS/N here where the response was that the site does not meet WP:RS criteria. It violates WP:ELNO, #11: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). To my knowledge, and at no time have I read anything to the contrary, maggiedane is not a recognized authority on the topic of silent films or anything related to them.

Thirdly, whether rudolphvalentino.org is operated solely by maggiedane or a group of people, there is still no evidence that the site meets criteria for WP:RS or for WP:EL that is any different from forgetthetalkies.com. It is still a privately published fansite by definition. That I also removed other sites that meet this same criteria for removal is beside the point, unless this person is involved as well with their operation. I removed the Louise Brooks Society based on the same rationale. (Late addition: That both website domains are registered and owned by the same person can be verified if necessary, but I won't post those links openly as they appear to give not only the name of the same owner, but the mailing address as well. I'd be happy to provide these links to an ArbCom or oversight member for verification Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) for date and signature of late addition).[reply]

Fourthly, maggiedane has repeatedly used her own website to source articles contrary to WP:RS policy. Thus the links were removed per policy. If she is linking to copies of articles written by others and posted to her site, that brings up copyright issues, if those posts are copyrighted elsewhere.

Because this editor wants these websites used on Wikipedia does not mean they meet policy or guidelines for use. They do not meet criteria for use per WP:RS nor do they meet criteria for external links per WP:EL. Because this editor has steadfastly re-added these links despite having been told they don't meet criteria is an issue, but not one for ArbCom unless ArbCom sees an issue with using multiple accounts and ignoring decisions reached at the relevant noticeboards regarding their appropriateness for use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Maggiedane, could you provide some confirmation that Wildhartlivie is aware of this request? Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy I have now notified Wildhartlivie of this case request. I also advised Maggiedane to try and adhere to proper procedure in future. Manning (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Comment Awaiting more statements. But at first glance this request seems premature and likely earlier steps in dispute resolution will address the matter. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, even Medcom, which comes before us, said this was premature. Wizardman 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per Wiz — Rlevse • Talk • 03:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as premature. If there is a pattern of problems, then that can be laid out at a request for comments on user conduct. But first you will have to convince at least one other person that there is a problem here. From what I can see here, the request for comment should be made on Maggiedane and her edits, but that needs actual further discussion by the community of editors on these articles, and then the wider community if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - Premature, as there doesn't seem to have been a solid attempt at finding resolution short of arbitration. Perhaps someone could assist Maggiedane in identifying better where to take this; for example, spam blacklist discussions to the spam blacklist, etc. Risker (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline at this time per other arbitrators' comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag

Initiated by Epeefleche (talk) at 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Draeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HWV258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Seresin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Contains Mild Peril (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1. I first tried ignoring the misconduct of Rjanag (FKA Politizer).

2. Twenty editors individually tried addressing it with him directly on talk pages and AfDs. To no avail.

Tony1 wrote Rjanag: “I'm disappointed that you're not setting an example—as WP:ADMIN requires of you.... If you're upsetting a lot of other users in the same place, it's time to self-reflect.”

Draeco also noticed the misconduct, and it was raised by 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, and RxS here. I wrote him numerous times:

Contacting Rjanag on talk pages and in AfD re his behavior

“Are you still wikihounding me? Please, I beseech you, stop.”[2]
“I'll ask you again, as I've asked you before. Please stop wikihounding me. Please stop trying to bully me into not communicating with others in a way that you prefer. Please. It's disruptive. Thanks.”[3]
“you are Wiki-hounding me by singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I may edit or debates where I contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to me. You are disrupting my enjoyment of editing. You're following me around has been accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. Please stop.”[4]
“You not only wikihounded me to that discussion, you then once again used a bullying tone and accused me of "disrupting other people's AfDs". I've asked you repeatedly to stop telling untruths. I've asked you repeatedly to stop bullying me. I've asked you repeatedly to stop wikihounding me. You simply don't stop. This is innappropriate and disruptive.”[5]
“This is not the first time you've done it—as here, where you were chastised for such behavior. That's classic wikihounding. I've asked you to stop in the past, and you're simply refusing to do so.”[6]
“Please stop following me to other discussions and trying to bully me into not asking completely legitimate questions of others. That's bullying, and disruptive.”[7]
“if this isn't the poster child of wikihounding, especially given the circumstances, I don't know what is.”[8]
“Your continued incivility is not appreciated.”[9]
"Your many innaccurate statements (always one-sided innacuracies, I should point out), bullying of me in an effort to keep readers from reading the truth, mischaracterizations, and wikihounding have been intensely disruptive. They interfere with editors being able to make a determination based on accurate facts and reasoned discussions.[10]
"it is your series of flagrant and one-sided misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, wikihounding, and bullying that I find disruptive. I gather from your response that I'm getting nowhere however in raising it to you."[11]
Communication to Rjanag on how his “learn how to read” edit summary is uncivil, and bullying: [12]
As to your request that I give an example of your bullying, the discussion surrounding my quote of the ("tiny") Seventeen article is one example. And the wikihounding/bullying at this.[13]
"you (Rjanag) are the one who has ... exaggerated/misstated facts numerous times in both this AfD and the prior AfD and in other discussions. Wikihounded me even to the doorstep of other editors' talk pages—one of whom wrote to you there: "It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted". Mischaracterized the Seventeen article three times—on September 29, and called the Seventeen article "tiny" in this AfD, and incorrectly stated how long it was in the prior AfD—and then amazingly turned around and publicly chastised me writing: "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?" (if it were tiny, it could not have bothered you, and in fact you were the only one who had objected previously)."[14]
"And yes, you did misrepresent in the first AfD on Sept. 13 that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". When I then quoted the article, pointing out that you had misrepresented its length, your response (to that and the rest of what I wrote) was, dismissively: "Way too long." Another editor intervened and responded to you: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."[15]
"You then on Sept. 29 again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here. When I corrected you, you chastised me for quoting the article.[16]
And actually yes, you did in fact misrepresent in the first AfD that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". [17]

3. Tony1 also suggested to Rjanag: "feel like asking for a review by an uninvolved admin or two?" Rjanag responded: "I suppose it will get review anyway when a closer shows up. But if you think more review is needed you're welcome to ask." The closer who "showed up"? Rjanag's best friend, Backslash.

4. There have been four AN/Is about Rjanag's misconduct this year. To no avail. Draeco brought this matter to AN/I, recommending discipline for grossly uncivil and shocking behavior. There, Wehwalt suggested another forum be tried because this issue is too complicated and fact-based. Three prior AN/Is had failed to stem Rjanag's misbehavior, specifically the Alefbe/Admin tools misuse AN/I, the Simon Dodd/"Go fuck yourself" AN/I, and the Ottava Rima/“if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You fucking moron” AN/I.

5. I elected to bring it to Arbitration without RfC, as permitted by WP:ADMIN.

Statement by Epeefleche

I urge Rjanag's summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to his adminship, per WP:ADMIN.

Over the past months Rjanag engaged in the following serious persistent misconduct (see prior AN/I and below):

Untruths. See also ContainsMildPeril comments.[18][19].
Incivility/Personal Attacks.
Wikihounding. Following me to others' talkpages and my RfA posting.
Bad faith/Bullying.
Edit warring/gaming the system.
COI w/closing admin. Neither revealed it.
Admin tools misuse.
Lack of contrition for misbehavior.

Despite requests he stop. Spanning multiple matters/editors.

Arbitration appropriate without RfC. WP:ADMIN states: "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner...may be sanctioned or have their access removed." Examples: poor judgment, attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, bad faith, and conduct incompatible w/adminship. It continues:

If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (...gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then...A Request for Arbitration [is available] if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship, without Request for Comment being needed."

[emphasis added]

Response to statement by Rjanag: •I invited all “involved parties” (those mentioned/communicated w/regard to Rjanag’s misbehavior).

•"Oct. 24 non-Apology". Content-less. Unconvincing. Doesn't even admit misconduct. Let alone apologize for it. It's not an apology at all for his untruths, wikihounding, etc. Apologizes only for: "unpleasant interactions that happened" and "messages...making the experience less enjoyable".[20][21] Up until hours ago, was completely unrepentant. Dozens of requests/incidents. He responded w/mean-spirited scarcasm ("Gosh, I feel so bad", and presciently "I'm just amused...You can complain about me all you want; it won't do any good for the closing admin."). Rather than heartfelt, his "apology" appears motivated by his desire to close this arbitration without review of his misconduct—because arbitrators just indicated it is serious. Confirming he is not contrite about his misbehavior are his statements on Oct. 16 ("I don't feel regret") and yesterday (when DGG advised he apologise): "to be honest, I don't see a need to apologize".

Response to statement by Backslash Forwardslash: •The AN/I reflects much more. And you nominated Rjanag to be an admin—in your first RfA support vote. Also—the editor on whose talkpage you've written twice as much as any other is Rjanag. And Rjanag has written on yours more than on those of all but Gatoclass. Rjanag is so much your alter ego, that he answers questions and handles requests posed to you on your talkpage; even leaving a Backslash-page-talkback on another editor's talkpage.

Response to comment by Ncmvocalist: Untrue.

Response to comment by Gatoclass: •I note Rjanag's left more messages on your talkpage than any other. His misconduct has manifested over separate matters, included admin tools misuse, and been criticized by many editors. He hasn't taken responsibility for his misbehavior.[22]

Other misconduct:

SimonDodd. Wrote Simon Dodd: "You can go fuck yourself." Unrepentant, admin Nja247 admonished him and Nfitz noted his lack of remorse. Backslash joined the AN/I, attacking Dodd.

Seresin/Alefbe. While edit-warring in a personal dispute w/Alefbe, Rjanag used admin powers to block Alefbe.[23][24] Admin Gimmetrow admonished him. Admin Seresin also admonished Rjanag: "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". (emphasis added). And then: "Misbehavior by another is not license to do the same....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."

NBeale. NBeale questioned a Rjanag speedy delete. In apparent retribution, 32 minutes later, Rjanag tagged NBeale w/a 3RR notice for edits NBeale had made on 3 separate days on an unrelated article. NBeale protested.[25] Rjanag responded: “grow up”, and called NBeale “very immature”. Later, restoring an article requested by NBeale, Rjanag wrote “Per your incessant requests, 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”. Rjanag predicted it would be snow closed. It was. By Black Kite. After 75 minutes, without the article author having a chance to state his case. NBeale wrote: “this level of aggression [is] completely unique in my experience". Rjanag replied: “Do you just not know how to read?”, then accused NBeale of “ranting”, and being “immature”. Backslash joined the conversation, supporting Rjanag.

Ottava Rima: “if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You fucking moron” AN/I. Backslash joined the AN/I, defending Rjanag. RFA posting: "I hate Ottava Rima".[26][27][28] Communication: "You can go fuck yourself". Edit summary: "then do a checkuser, bitch".

Matthead. See below.

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to question by arbitrator Newyorkbrad: Yes. Just a few hours ago, NBeale requested an apology. Rjanag responded (w/edit summary "no one owes NBeale anything. usless editor"): "I owe you no apology... Editors who care about nothing other than promoting themselves are useless to this project and should not be welcome here." Which is at odds with WP:CONFLICT; How to handle conflicts of interest; Importance of civility. This is consistent with his repeated refusals at the four AN/Is and in the other cited incidents to: a) admit his misconduct; and b) apologize for his misconduct to Simon Dodd, NBeale, Alefbe, Ottava Rima, Matthead, and various editors at the Shells AfD (even though in a number of those instances it was suggested that he apologize).

I've avoided editing articles where he had engaged in conflict with me, so as not to give him a chance to attack me.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

Can't imagine why I am listed as a party. I simply stated that the matter was so complicated that AN/I could not easily handle it and marked it resolved, with the notation that another forum might be more suitable. I take no position as to whether arbs should take this case or not, or if they do, what they should do. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'll watchlist this and keep an eye on it just in case, but don't plan to comment further unless something unexpected happens. Best to all involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping me from the parties list. If anyone thinks I am involved, could you drop a note on my talk page in addition to addressing it here? I'm going to give this a few hours, then unwatch this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, same for me. I was passing by the deletion page and advised cool-headedness for all; I suggested to Rjanag that an uninvolved admin be asked to review. I don't think I can be of further assistance. Tony (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rjanag

A lot of the same back-and-forth (about who's right, who's wrong, who's been mean to whom, etc.) has been gone over and over again by now so I'm not going to fill up space by copy-pasting it here. I'll just say, for now, that I see no point in coming to RfAr here, as Epeefleche has skipped WP:WQA (for which I provided links to several of the editors who had aired grievances), WP:RFC/U, and all the other less formal means of dispute resolution. (Epeefleche gives a laundry list above of times he's "contacted Rjanag about behavior", but none amount to formal attempts at dispute resolution; a bunch are "leave me alone" messages—eg, 1-5—and a bunch are "you're so wrong/you're such a liar" messages—eg, 14-16. The ANI thread was just a "hey, desysop this jerk!" rant, not an attempt at dispute resolution.) I've seen arbitration cases before, and all the ones I've seen are for cases much bigger than this—disputes that have gone on longer, span a larger part of the project, have happened over more than just one isolated topic, involve more editors, etc. I have no prejudice against any of these editors taking me to WQA (although, as I have already said many times, I don't think I have anything to apologize for), but there's no need to waste ArbCom's time with this minor vendetta. (And yes, it is a vendetta: Epeefleche et al. made no attempt to file an ANI thread, WQA, or any other form of dispute resolution while the AfD was ongoing, presumably because they hoped the AfD's closure as "keep" would be my comeuppance; only after they failed to get that comeuppance did they start looking for new forums to complain about my activities.) I see no need for arbitration as there is no ongoing dispute—I've lost interest in the whole topic and have not communicated directly with Epeefleche since before the AfD ended, and this whole thing will be over once he does the same. I will also make a minor note, on the side, that once again Epeefleche has notified only me, Backslash (the other editor he's complaining about here), and all the editors he thinks will be on his side; no attempt was made to notify the other half of the AfD participants, even though they are just as "involved" as all others. A clear attempt at votestacking (in something that isn't even a vote). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Striking my previous statement to replace with a new message; mainly intended for Epeefleche and Greg L).

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, including myself; whether other people's messages also did so, or anyone 'deserved' anything, is no longer relevant, as we are all—myself included—responsible for only our own actions. Therefore, while I don't believe my opinions about the article were ever "wrong", I can acknowledge that my way of expressing them has upset other editors. I hope this can be a step towards our moving on to other things, as I have already said in my statements that I have no interest in continuing a dispute after the article itself has been dealt with.

While maybe Epeefleche and Greg L do still want retribution for my actions, I think it fair to assume that what you are most interested in is fair treatment of the article (after all, the whole dispute began about the article, not about any one editor) and that the best way to get that is to open a DRV—which, if accepted, could get the AfD reopened or have a third, "clean slate" AfD started. An Arb case, on the other hand, would suck up a lot of time and effort (both Arbs' time and, just as importantly, yours and mine) and further distract from what we all want, which is a satisfactory decision on what to do with the Shells article. So I am offering my apologies in the hopes that we can stop pursuing an ArbCom case and shift our attentions to DRV. To avoid a repeat of what happened in the previous deletion debates, I also offer my guarantee that I will leave no more than one message at the DRV (basically a statement saying that I had no communication with Backslash Forwardslash about The Shells—I will not say anything about any other editors)—and if I leave more than one, anyone has my permission to remove it. That way the DRV can get some fresh opinions and, hopefully, not get bogged down in the type of bickering that I contributed to in the AfDs.

As for me, I have a FAC starting, an article in my sandbox that I'd like to get written, another article I'm about to rewrite in collaboration with a fellow user, and a bot I'm eager to get off the ground; I'm sure you all have more interesting and exciting projects you'd like to get back to. I don't pretend to think that one message from me is going to resolve everything, but hopefully it's at least a step in the right direction, to get us all back to building the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Backslash Forwardslash

Old Statement I made an error in judgement in closing the AfD - I wasn't fully alert and did not consider that my actions may be perceived as being disingenuous or simply supporting a pal. [[User:HibernianTears|HibernianTears] sums up the situation pretty well; I acted without bias but failed to consider how I may appear corrupt. That said, I do still believe that the AfD closure was correct, in line with the arguments brought in that debate. While it is clear that some editors disagree with my interpretation, I welcome the closure being listed at deletion review.

That said, Epeefleeche's behaviour since the closure has been concerning. I haven't bothered reading the full history of this dispute, but if Rjanag can be said to be hounding, I think Epeefleeche's actions in trawling archives finding a list of people to support him (admins make enemies, they delete things and block people - but most often for correct reasons); his unusually high level of activity in his statements and questionable actions in taking this dispute to other fora, makes me question his motives. If you feel wronged Epeefleeche, accept Rjanag's apology and move on. If you believe the AfD closure was wrong, go to DRV and I'll be happy to see what comes of that discussion.

I'm not excusing Rjanag's behaviour, but I think it would do everyone involved in this situation a lot of good to simply let it go. Hunting for blood is just going to make everyone redder. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Greg L

I am highly doubtful that anything will come of this arbitration because the remedy Epeefleche is asking for (de-sysoping Rjanag) just doesn’t ever seem to come about on Wikipedia. Moreover, ArbCom seems the wrong venue for this as there are several issues at play here.

I expect administrators to know the rules, adhere to the rules, to exercise sound judgement, to try to de-escalate tensions when tensions run high, and to behave in a mature fashion. I found the behavior of Rjanag to be aggressive and needlessly confrontational and think Wikipedia is worse off by having him burdened with the responsibilities of being an administrator. He’s just not up to it in my opinion.

I will leave it up to others to look into Rjanag’s complete past record and decide whether his behavior the last few weeks is atypical or not. I am afraid that his above belated apology is just that: belated. His behavior undermined the central mission of why we’re all here. It is clear from just a brief glance at Epeefleche’s posts here and in the other bureaucratic venues leading to here that he has spend truly preposterous amounts of time dealing with this issue. None of it was necessary. Editors should never have to put up with so much abuse and then have to jump through so many bureaucratic hoops to seek a remedy from that abuse.

This is not about Rjanag making things right by me; though I was certainly the recipient of his special brand of love, I don’t feel as if I am the injured party here. My hope is that Epeefleche will find the right venues for righting a wrong as far as The Shells (folk song band) goes. I also hope he has the tenacity to find the right venue for addressing the issue of Rjanag. What goes without saying is I (and many other Wikipedians) don’t see how Wikipedia becomes a lesser encyclopedia with The Shells article included. Then I would like it if Wikipedia’s Bureaucrats carefully scrutinized Rjanag past record, integrated it with this latest behavior, and simply do what they feel best improves Wikipedia and makes for a more harmonious Wikipedian community. If the decision is to de-sysop Rjanag, he can continue to contribute to Wikipedia without the added responsibilities and burdens of being an administrator. Greg L (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Draeco

My case remains as I stated at ANI. Rjanag's behavior (and continued denial) is absolutely unacceptable, as I think anyone could see. Let's not let bureaucracy interfere with justice. Wikipedia suffers when misconduct like this is permitted. He must be corrected, whatever the venue. I recommend reprimand and/or temporary blocking, but not de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. - Draeco (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by seresin

My interaction with rjanag consists of two comments I made on his talk page, as noted above. I am not involved in the dispute which provoked this request, so listing me as an involved party is over-zealous. I am, though, of the opinion that rjanag's behavior in this and one unrelated dispute is unbecoming of an administrator. While I do not believe the evidence and statements as presented merit a full case, I am uneasy with the committee's declining to review rjanag's behavior only because a full case is inappropriate at this time. I stand by my statement that edits like these—as well as an overturned block of the editor, with whom he was in a content dispute—are wholly unbecoming of an administrator, and I think the committee would do well to review these issues. A full case is not needed to review and comment on behavior.÷seresin 05:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

This obviously involves allegations of editor/admin misconduct. However, several users at the recent ANI on this, myself included (and I specifically referred to the user who filed this), indicated that it needs to be taken to DRV and RfC/U as there was nothing really actionable - nobody in the community wanted to impose binding measures, but wanted to see attempts to voluntarily resolve the dispute in early stages of dispute resolution. No attempt was made to voluntarily resolve the dispute in line with the given feedback - this indicates that the filing party is solely interested in binding measures. Accordingly, if a case is accepted, and it is found that this could have been resolved short of arbitration (and any accompanying drama), it would not be unreasonable to expect binding measures on the filing party for being unreceptive to community feedback (and any other issues that are brought up with respect to his conduct and/or judgement). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to filing party: I did point to RfC, and your name explicitly at the discussion - see my comments at 09:07 23 October 2009 (UTC) and 23 October 2009 (UTC). Wehwalt (who closed the ANI) did suggest dispute resolution, particularly RfC at 13:36 23 October (UTC). Rjanag welcomed you to start one at 14:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC). ChildofMidnight also noted that a "collegial note from a third party can go a long way in resolving disputes without the need for public flogging/ humiliation or brute force (admin tool use)" - this would've resulted from an RfC. You've given all appearances, even now, that the sole reason you ignored all of this and escalated it here was because you will be unsatisfied unless Rjanag's tools are removed for the "wikicrimes" he perpetuated against you/others. As for my close, I've used plain English in outlining under what circumstances you should be sanctioned, and why - if those circumstances do not arise, you have nothing to worry about, though the fact you gather that my comment amounts to threatening you does say something. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by peripherally involved Black Kite

Arbs may wish to consider the background to the initial issue, which appears to have been conveniently ignored by the filing party.

Black Kite 11:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

As far as I am aware, there are no allegations of misuse of tools here, just of incivility and "wikihounding". Neither has there been any evidence presented that the admin in question has demonstrated a pattern of misbehaviour outside the confines of this dispute. To put it another way, this basically appears to be a spat between two editors which has gotten a little out of hand, and that in my view is certainly not a serious enough matter to justify an arbcom case - particularly when no other means of dispute resolution has been tried first. Epeefleche should have taken this to WQA in my opinion, or RCU, this is supposed to be the venue of last resort, not the first.

Apart from which, Rjanag has already taken responsibility for overreacting and apologized. The fact that his apology has not been accepted just underscores the fact, as Ncmvocalist has pointed out above, that one party has not sought and is still not seeking to resolve the dispute but appears rather to be attempting to extract revenge, and one would hope not to see such behaviour given encouragement. Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NBeale

I think we have a serious problem if we say that the level of aggression described here is OK for an Admin. A new user writes their first article and it is summarily deleted within a few minutes without even a warning or a chance for anyone to comment or improve on it. A US publisher (not mine FWIW) alerts me (I was subject of the article) and when I try to explain we get a rigged deletion debate. I'm wryly used to wikipolitical deletions (AFAIK we have never otherwise deleted the author of a N book) but this new user may well be put off for life (and FWIW Rjanag then unilaterlly imposed a harsher "penalty" than the rigged AfD decided). The Chairman of a major media group was scathing over dinner about Wikipedia saying specifically that we do a very bad job on BLP, and the US publisher I menrioned was suggesting a journalistic investigation of the way some admins game the system. We have a reputational issue and if no action is taken this will simply send the signal that Arbcom thinks this kind of aggession is OK. NBeale (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment by Rjanag: "let's get on with building an encyclopedia" - hear hear. I don't think Rjanag should be prevented from doing this at all. But what I think is clear is that he is far too aggressive in preventing other people from making their modest contributions to building Wikipedia, and I strongly suspect that there will be many more instances of where he has used his Admin powers and status to delete other people's contributions or get them deleted. NBeale (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by peripherally involved Matthead

While I'm not involved in the issues which led to this request, I recently not only witnessed poor judgment by Rjanag, but also suffered from it, see User_talk:Matthead/Archive2009#Blocked (for 72h) and User_talk:Rjanag/Archive7#User:Matthead. After protecting the article West Germany due to editwarring (2RR by me, 3RR by two others), he looked at the other contribs of one of the participants and reverted another article to a version which contained a false claim about the content of a source, which I had exposed before on Talk:Elisabeth Hevelius. After I informed him at User_talk:Rjanag/Archive7#Jacurek_at_West_Germany, he reverted himself. So, no harm done, one would assume. Unless Rjanag dislikes having his errors exposed, that is. After a misinformation about 1RR from User:Jacurek (currently subject to AE), Rjanag, apparently assuming that West Germany was part of Eastern Europe, where I had been issued a temporary 1RR, decided to block me, for 72h. How one can believe that West Germany (properly speaking the Federal Republic of Germany in its form with 11 members states until 1990, a member of NATO, EU etc.) had been part of Eastern Europe, is beyond me, as present day Germany is considered part of Western Europe, so how could its Western part be in Eastern Europe? Doubting the wisdom of his decision himself, he asked admin Sandstein, who had issued the 1RR, for a block review. Even though Sandstein clarified that my "edits to West Germany did not relate to Eastern Europe and thus did not violate the revert restriction", Rjanag refused to unblock me, as requested by me. He conceded that Jacurek was trying to "bait" me, but showed to insight into his error. It took a third admin to unblock me; that admin also stated that Rjanag had made "a mistaken assumption about the nature of the revert limitation" and if Rjanag would have been "judging the situation fairly and without the misinformation about 1RR, other participants, especially Jacurek, would have had deserved a block more; this makes this block objectively inappropriate." Even after the unblock and the statement, Rjanag remained undiscerning [29], apparently assuring that I deserve a block for 2RR (not 3 reverts as he falsely states), while those who did 3RR received only warnings from him. Wikipedia does not need admins who issue inappropriate blocks and then refuse to rectify their mistakes. -- Matthead Discuß 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement and comment by Contains Mild Peril

I think Rjanag's apology and pledge to contribute no more than once to any future DRV on The Shells (folk band) is certainly a step in the right direction: however if Epeefleche still does not consider the matter to be satisfactorily resolved then arbitration may be appropriate. As Rjanag said, we all have other things to do on Wikipedia, so I don't want this dispute to fester. Let's deal with it so we can all move on.

To the best of my recollection I had no contact with Rjanag and minimal contact with Epeefleche prior to The Shells AfD, but I soon got the impression that those two editors were involved in a bitter conflict. Rjanag repeatedly criticised and chastised Epeefleche and was grossly uncivil on some occasions, while Epeefleche accused Rjanag of wikihounding and misrepresenting certain facts. During the AfD I tried to focus on the article and the notability of its subject rather than the bickering, but I did express support for Epeefleche on his talk page afterwards, and I expressed the opinion that some of the behaviour I'd seen looked like a vendetta. I also mentioned that the AfD had been closed after slightly less than 7 days, and expressed the view that in such a contentious case proper procedure should have been more strictly followed. At that time I knew nothing of the relationship between Rjanag and Backslash Forwardslash.

I accept that there was no behind-the-scenes communication between Rjanag and Backslash Forwardslash regarding the AfD, and that those editors are not responsible for each other's actions. I also realise that administrators tend to be very active on Wikipedia and it's not surprising for two admins to be acquainted: however since these two are obviously better acquainted than most, it would have been wiser to leave the case for someone who would be seen as more neutral to close, particularly since the AfD still had over 4 hours to run before the normal 7-day period expired. It may be acceptable for friends to close each other's AfD's in cases with little controversy where consensus is very clear, but when the debate has been very heated and several editors have contributed to both sides of the argument, impartiality is particularly important. I believe Backslash made an error of judgement in closing this case when he did, and that acknowledging this would be a helpful step towards resolution. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement and comment by involved psantora

I have never participated in an arbitration case before, so I apologize in advance if I'm not following the correct procedure.

To be blunt I don't really have time to read through the vast majority of this content and give a thorough response. I am an involved party because I believe I helped instigate this disruptive behavior from ~~User:VMAsNYC~~User:Epeefleche, which resulted in him getting the attention of User:Rjanag. I also asked Rjanag to contribute to a dispute resolution (I cannot recall which one) I tried to initiate early in the life of The Shells article.

I'm not surprised that I wasn't included as an involved party in this case list by Epeefleche since the vast majority of the people he did include support his view. I agree with Rjanag's characterization of Epeefleche's behavior as a vendetta. In Epeefleche's sockpuppet investigation there were two sockpuppets of his that were created shortly after our dispute regarding The Shells that I believe were created to specifically target my contributions.

Delcnsltmd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- I identify my profession as a consultant on my user page.
Buckgrad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- I identify one of the schools I graduated from as Buckley.

Long story short, if Epeefleche didn't get into a dispute with Rjanag, it would have happened with some other editor Epeefleche disagreed with at some point down the line. Despite any possible incivility/frustration from Rjanag, Epeefleche's behavior is clearly disruptive and vindictive. I had been planning on filing my own WP:AN/I investigation but real life kicked in and it didn't seem worth the trouble in the limited amount of time I had to work on Wikipedia. Given what has happened since I now regret not taking action sooner. I spoke off-wiki with User:Mazca (an admin that granted autoconfirmed status to VMAsNYC so he could upload files to The Shells article) when VMAsNYC/Epeefleche was first blocked and Mazca can substantiate my concerns about Epeefleche's behavior. I strongly urge that this case either be closed or amended into an arbitration case on Epeefleche rather than Rjanag. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement and comment by marginally involved DGG

I was only very marginally involved in the argument over the band. There did seem to be a good deal of a confrontational attitude on both sides. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HWV258

As previously stated, I was disappointed by the behaviour I witnessed. I don't believe an abrupt and arrogant administrator does WP any good. HWV258 09:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by previously-involved Mazca

As Psantora above notes, I was substantially involved in the earlier parts of this issue: I performed various (at the time) non-controversial admin tasks in relation to The Shells (folk band) and related articles. These included various move-over-redirects to assist with disambiguation, and granting User:VMAsNYC confirmed status to upload images. These various tasks were performed at the request of Epeefleche and VMAsNYC - at no point was I made aware that they were the same user. I was then involved, to an extent, with mediating the dispute over various items in the article between Psantora, and Epeefleche's undisclosed multiple accounts. I found Epeefleche's understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion policies and his borderline harrassment of Psantora to be rather disturbing at the time; and I was very pleased to see Rjanag take up responsibility for the whole area given that I really have not had enough time on Wikipedia recently to do it justice.

While I'm currently ambivalent over whether an arbitration case is warranted here, if one is opened I would strongly encourage the scope of it to very clearly encompass Epeefleche as well: Rjanag's questionable behaviour is primarily focused around some equally-questionable behaviour from Epeefleche. If a case is opened I'll be happy to go into more depth in terms of diff evidence, but I don't wish to waste my time and everyone else's at this stage. This is an acrimonious dispute over an issue that is substantially wider than is implied by the initial statement. ~ mazca ^talk 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MuZemike

Having been involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells as the closing admin (as well as the ensuing deletion review initiated by Rjanag at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 28#The Shells (as well as having been requested by Epeefleche to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination) in which I chose not to participate), I'm compelled to make a short statement. My brief interaction with Rjanag regarding my close of the first AFD (see [30]) was I thought acceptable and civil. As for the rest, I don't know much else, so I will keep it there. In any case, I personally don't think Arbitration is the right thing to do at this time especially with other venues existing to address grievances with users or admins, such as WP:RFC/U or WP:RFC/ADMIN, respectively.

As an aside, I will attest that closing XFD discussions is one of the most under-appreciated jobs to on the English Wikipedia, probably next to being an Arbitrator. It's like being a sports referee or umpire (which I do happen to do in real life, but I'll keep it at that) – you're always going to get yelled at sometimes regardless what call you make, and not everyone's going to be pleased by the calls and decisions that you make. Administrators working with deletions need to display a good "give-and-take" attitude with other users. They are expected to be courteous and open-minded when approached at with regards to the (non-)deletion of a page, especially to newcomers. At the same time, they are expected to know how to say "no" to the same users in a way that least likely puts them off, as many pages do get rightly deleted in that those who contest the (non-)deletion may not necessarily understand and/or agree. MuZemike 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

@ Wehwalt: I've removed you from the parties list based on your statement above; if you don't feel as though you're involved, there's no reason to have you listed as a party unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Epeefleche: Could you provide diffs showing that all parties are aware of this request, please? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that if there are no further accept/decline votes from Arbitrators, this request will be declined on Monday, as that will have been 10 days from the original posting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/2)

Comment - my initial opinion here is that either a case is needed, or this can be declined in favour of a request for comment on the conduct of the user in question. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Formally decline in favour of a request for comment on admin conduct. Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - there are several serious issues here. @Greg L - several admins have been desyssop or resigned due to cause this year. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accept~~ I don't see this conflict ending without ArbCom's assistance. Hopefully early intervention can help the involved parties refocus their energy into more collaborative contributions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Rjanag's question on my talk page. From observing conflicts on Wikipedia for over 3 years, I have a sense of when a matter is going to blow over without assistance from the Committee or whether a matter with escalate or fester. IMO the most likely outcome (without ArbCom remedies) is the situation escalating with loads of drama or becoming a prolonged dispute. If ArbCom takes the case, hopefully the matter can be resolved with the least disruption. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm going to put my accept on hold to see if Rjanag's new statement with an apology will help permanently resolve the conflict. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. As Nmcvocalist notes, there are other avenues yet left to resolve this matter. Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, I think an RfC may actually be helpful in this situation, since Rjanag does seem to want to improve from this and move on rather than be confrontational. Wizardman 20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per FloNight's comments of 24 October. An RFC may well be helpful here, provided that everyone operates in good faith. I do hope that Rjanag understands that rudeness on the part of administrators is unhelpful to the point that it can be considered antithetical to continued use of the administrator tools, and will adjust his behaviour with that in mind. Risker (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to decline at this point per my colleagues' comments above. Before finally voting decline, I would like to ask all parties whether there are any allegations of further problematic behavior by Rjanag since he posted his apology. Rjanag should understand that future conduct and comments similar to the ones being complained about could tend to change a number of "decline" to "accept" votes very quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]