Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/R. fiend

message: I wondered if you had a reply to my suggestion  here? The thread was closed before you had a chance to reply, perhaps? Apologies if you already replied and I missed it, but I thought my suggestion made sense. --John (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly one of the more sensible things I've seen recently. I wasn't aware that it required a response. But I am in general agreement. However, I am not going to apologize for fixing a typo. I am learning from this experience, I don't mind saying. -R. fiend (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for R. fiend 

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

message: Since it appears that I’m becoming the focus of some attention, and quite a number of allegations, which deflects from the issue involved here, might I suggest that at the conclusion of this current RfC, that one be initiated about my conduct? 
Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, I take comfort from the fact that contrary to my deeply held assumption, the community is not deaf, dumb or blind to the actions of Administrators.  Having now seen the attention to detail, the time and effort which has gone into producing this report, I will not demean it with any attempt to justify or mitigate any of my behaviour, regardless of frustration, provocation or what I may have regrettably perceived to be a lack of interest by Administrators. Content disputes come and go, but its how we conduct ourselves, and the example we give that tells on us all.  --Domer48 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there has been talk of a WP:RFC/U for you, but I am not sure what was decided.  I find it interesting that you are asking for one though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You have to understand that the presumption that an editor that is complaining about administrator bias or misbehavior is without basis is very rarely unfounded.  I would ballpark estimate that well over 95% of complaints against administrators are made in bad faith; and that's probably a bit optimistic— that's why you need a strong, well supported case before the community reacts; after all an administrator has already earned the community's trust.  This often led to cries of cabals.  But – quite opposite to the common misperception – administrators, as a community, are very unforgiving of misbehaving peers.What you may have encountered in the past is more likely to be well-founded skepticism than a brush off; and it's an unfortunate but unavoidable fact that the rare genuine cry of admin abuse is met with resistance and disbelief at first.There is a very good reason why administrators are, basically, given tenure: almost by definition the acts we have to take everyday will displease someone— and often those angered editors will be the – shall we say – less well behaved among us.  Blocking someone, preventing edition and outright deleting prose are all innately unpopular acts (if necessary) and making administrators dependent on transient mood or an Astroturf campaign would scare most into not acting when necessary. — Coren (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: While I agree that Domer48 has his own agenda and that there are article issues, and that yes - R. fiend is doing some excellent work on redressing that balance, this is not about editors, nor is it about articles; it's about misuse of admin tools, going back ages. By all means, bring an RfA regarding Domer48's behaviour or discuss putting him on Troubles parole. I'm good with all these things. However, this is about abuse of tools and almost all of the examples brought up (I only checked the last few months) have gone unaddressed by this admin. And that is of major concern - Alison ❤ 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I again suggest that one of them file a RfC on me, one in which my "agenda" is addressed, or exposed and R. fiend's "excellent work on redressing that balance" can be shown (with diff's of course). --Domer48 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re. [[User:Damac|Damac's]] comment 

message: Please note, I have acted on the consensus I have seen on the main RfC page, and opened a Request for Arbitration. You may add (brief, 500 words or less) statements Here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me, but I've never been involved in Arbcom before. Do I get to make a statement now, and if so, any place in particular? -R. fiend (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, go to the page I linked to, R. fiend, since you're an involved party, you can place your statement under Alison's and I'll set up a section for your reply, or you can do so yourself SirFozzie (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There will also be a seperate comment page where you and others editors can address issues or comments made in the arbcom.--Padraig (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's IF the case gets opened (and yes, there's 2 of a required four votes to open already, but let's not put the cart before the horse here ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom Note