Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Rjanag		23 October 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Rjanag

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

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

• Rjanag
• Backslash Forwardslash
• DGG
• Draeco
• Greg L
• HWV528
• Kiac
• Seresin
• Contains Mild Peril

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• 1. I tried ignoring Rjanag's behavior.

2. Then we tried addressing it with him directly on talk pages and AfDs. To no avail.

Tony1 wrote Rjanag that he was: “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 noticed the incivility, and it was raised by Kiac here, HWV258 here, Greg L here and here, DGG here, Seresin here and here, Alefbe here and NBeale here and 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”[1] “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.”[2] As I pointed out to Rjanag, he wikihounded 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.”[3] “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.”[4] “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.” “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.” “And if this isn't the poster child of wikihounding, especially given the circumstances, I don't know what is.” “Your continued incivility is not appreciated.”[5] "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.[6] "As I had sought to make clear, 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." Communication to Rjanag on how his “learn how to read” edit summary is uncivil, and bullying: [7] 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. "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)."[8] "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."[9] "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.[10] And actually yes, you did in fact misrepresent in the first AfD that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". [11]

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. Draeco brought this matter to AN/I, recommending that Rjanag be disciplined for grossly uncivil and shocking behavior. There, Wehwalt suggested another forum be tried because this issue is too complicated and fact-based for 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 weeks Rjanag engaged in the following serious and persistent misconduct (largely detailed at the prior AN/I and below):

• Untruths. See also ContainsMildPeril comments here and here.
• Incivility/Personal Attacks.
• Wikihounding & Bullying. Following me to others' talk pages and my RfA post.
• Bad faith & Bullying.
• Edit warring/gaming the system.
• COI: Uniquely close relationship w/closing admin. Neither brought to anyone's attention.
• Lack of contrition for misbehavior.
• Misuse of admin tools.

Despite repeated requests that he stop. This spans multiple matters and editors. It is especially demoralizing given his admin status.

The background is set forth at the previous AN/I.

I’ve edited here 3 years, w/22,000 edits, and created 180 pages. I’ve never seen an admin engage in such consistently abhorrent behavior in the face of repeated entreaties to stop. It poisons Wikipedia.

Arbitration appropriate without RfC. WP:ADMIN states: "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed." It indicates in the past this has happened or been suggested for repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), 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]

Excessively lengthy sections of statement removed from public view.

Response to statement by Rjanag <•I proceeded to arbitration after: a) first ignoring the misbehavior; b) multiple efforts by me and others to discuss it with Rjanag both on talk pages and at AfDs; and c) Draeco raising it in an AN/I that has now closed, as permitted by WP:ADMIN. •Rjanag’s unrepentant pooh-poohing of the length of time and level of his misbehavior is part of the problem. •As to why nobody brought the AN/I or this arb during the pendency of the AfD, as Rjanag well knows, during the AfD I was hoping to address this issue without a long, involved process. Also, arguably it is less disruptive to address these matters seriatum. •Rjanag even left a message on my talk page after the AfD ended, butting into a conversation between me and Greg L with the uncivil edit summary: “Learn what you’re talking about”. But that’s beside the point. What is at issue is his persistent misbehavior. •I believe I’ve properly invited all “involved parties”, as I’ve invited all users mentioned here and all who communicated with regard to Rjanag’s behavior–-the issue of this arb request. I’ve also apparently invited too many, as I invited the admin who closed the AN/I (Wehwalt, who asked to be deleted). I’ve also asked here if others should be invited, even if they were not involved in the behavior or commenting on it during the AfD. •Seresin misconduct. While Rjanag protests that this as a problem specific to his interactions with me (and presumably the half dozen other editors mentioned here), that's not the case. For example, earlier this month, admin Seresin admonished Rjanag with regard to an unrelated matter as follows: "I'm rather surprised you thought making this edit was appropriate, especially as an administrator. I think it was very poor form and reflects poorly on you, and I think you would do well to remove it." (emphasis added). And then, to a non-repentant Rjanag: "Misbehavior by another is not license to do the same. As for the conflict itself, I note that 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." •"Apology". First, I'm saddened Rjanag's Oct. 24 "apology" did not come weeks earlier. Second, it's decidedly content-less and unconvincing. He does not even admit his misconduct, let alone apologize for it. It's not an apology at all for his misbehavior—his persistent misstatements, edit warring, wikihounding, gaming the system, and hidden COI. He apologizes only, mind you: "for unpleasant interactions that happened" and his "messages [which] contributed to making the experience less enjoyable for all parties involved, including myself". He adds: "I can acknowledge that my way of expressing them has upset other editors." This misses the point completely. This arb request is for a proper review of his weeks-long unrepentant misbehavior, and for the arb committee to determine the appropriate sanction. Third, up until hours ago, he was painfully unrepentant. Through weeks and through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, spanning more than one matter, an AN/I, an arb request, and evidence pouring in regarding his COI with the closing admin. Rather than being heartfelt, his "apology" appears to have more to do with his desire to close this arbitration without review of his misconduct—because arb admins have just now indicated that they view his misconduct as serious. Confirming that Rjanag is not contrite, but just seeking to avoid review of his weeks-long misbehavior which was devoid of any apology other than those dripping with 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."), is his statement as recently as yesterday (when DGG advised that he apologise) that: "Well, to be honest, I don't see a need to apologize". Duplicity this week, post-AfD. •One additional point re his duplicity, which bears on my view. I just noticed that despite his uniquely close relationship with the closing admin, when he wikihounded Greg L to my talk page after the AfD closed, on Oct. 20—a mere 4 days ago—he sought to game the system and mislead editors when he had the temerity to write: "As for which arguments are "better"... of course you think the keep arguments proved without doubt that the band is "clearly notable" .... That's the whole point of having uninvolved closers judge it; both your opinion and mine are worthless by now, as we're quite involved. The issue isn't whether you think your arguments are better, it's whether they convinced the closer." (emphasis added). His behavior as recently as this week has been outrageous. All evidence suggests that without appropriate steps being taken he will bring dishonor to this project.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Response to statement by Backslash Forwardslash <•No one has appealed the AfD during the AN/I, nor now during the pendency of this arbitration. That may well be an effort to limit confusion and disruption, by addressing the two issues seriatum rather than concurrently. In any event, what is at issue here is Rjanag’s weeks-long misbehavior. •As far as your relationship with Rjanag, what was presented at the prior AN/I reflects decidedly more than "Me and Rjanag are friends". In addition, the editor to whom you have written (on his talk page) twice as much as any other is Rjanag. And the editor to whom Rjanag has written more than all but one other editor? Turns out it is you. And who nominated Rjanag to be an admin? You — in your first RfA support vote (let alone nomination). Add the information shared at the prior AN/I, and your coming in before the 7 days had run and closing the hotly contested AfD where Rjanag was the nom (as he wanted it closed) reeks of innappropriate COI.> Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Response to comment by Ncmvocalist <•WP:ADMIN states: "If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then two other steps are also available: .... 2. A Request for Arbitration 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." Such is the case here. •Per WP:ADMIN, I brought this to a request for arbitration—a step in the dispute resolution process—after: a) I tried ignoring Rjanag's misbehavior; b) I and others then tried discussing it with Rjanag a great number of times on talk pages and at AfDs; and c) Draeco then brought an AN/I for Rjanag's grossly uncivil and shocking behavior (which closed with the suggestion that another forum perhaps be tried because this issue is too complicated and fact-based for AN/I). •I'm not sure (even after re-reading the AN/I) who the "several users" are who you assert stated this "needs to be taken" to DRV and RfC/U "as there was nothing really actionable". (emphasis added). That's simply untrue. Others are free to glance at the AN/I to see that. •I gather from your close that I am being threatened, but I'm really not sure why you would threaten me for simply availing myself of my rights.>--Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 2nd response. Apologies for repeating myself. First, WP:ADMIN (cited twice above) without question allows me to bring this matter here without bringing it to RfC. Second, your statement that "several users" stated that this "needs to be taken" to DRV and RfC/U is untrue. Please point us to "several users" who stated that this "needs to be taken" to DRV and RfC/U. When you made this misstatement the first time, I assumed it must be due to your not having looked at the facts. At this point, since you fail to acknowledge that your statement is untrue, I have no idea what is motivating you. And why you are seeking to chill my exercising my rights at Wikipedia. Rjanag has for weeks engaged in the precise misbehavior discussed in WP:ADMIN, and I am availing myself of a remedy specifically afforded me in such circumstances by WP:ADMIN.>--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Response to comment by Black Kite <•As with your recent "biting" of HWV258 at the AN/I that preceded this, after he complained of Rjanag's behavior ("given your spectacularly unhelpful contributions to both AFDs, I'd suggest that it would be better for someone uninvolved to be pushing that agenda"), you now attack me with when I try to address Rjanag's behavior. The issue here is Rjanag's misbehavior. As to your citing the sockpuppet investigation, without citing the ultimate resolution (which as you know was that there were no sockpuppets, a block was not in order, and the closer issuing me an apology)—that strikes me as a somewhat innappropriate diversion, fashioned to mislead this arbitration.>--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Response to comment by Gatoclass <•First, there are allegations here of misuse of admin tools by Rjanag in the Seresin incidents (discussed by me and by admin Seresin). But that's beside the point, as his other misbehavior is without question sufficient under WP:ADMIN for arbitration and the indicated sanctions. •Second, in addition to Rjanag's weeks-long incivility and wikihounding, this concerns his persistent misstatements, edit warring, and efforts to game the system (including failure to reveal the COI close of an AfD). •Third, his misbehavior has been evidenced beyond the weeks-long confines of this dispute in the Seresin incidents; if we wish to explore whether he engaged in additional misbehavior, we can do so. •Fourth, the number of editors who have criticized Rjanag's behavior is now between half a dozen and a dozen. •Fifth, after: a) trying to ignore him, b) me and others asking him many times to stop his misbehavior, and c) an AN/I being brought (not by me, but by Draeco), as is stated in WP:ADMIN it was without question perfectly within our rights to bring this matter here without taking it to RfC. WP:ADMIN makes it is clear that precisely this sort of admin misbehavior is appropriately addressed in arbitration. •Sixth, Rjanag has not taken responsibility for his persistent incivility, wikihounding, untruths, edit warring, and efforts to game the system (including failing to reveal a COI AfD close). •Finally, the number of apologists for Rjanag here (including the two editors—you and Backslash Forwardslash—on whose talk pages Rjanag has left more messages than any other) who have failed to even take notice of Rjanag's misbehavior, but rather have sought to divert attention with misstatements and red herrings concerning everything but Rjanag's misbehavior, persuades me that arbitration is in fact the only place where there is the possiblity of this matter being addressed fairly, impartially, and properly.>--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC) •NBeale misconduct. Responding further to your assertion that there has not been "any evidence presented that [Rjanag] has demonstrated a pattern of misbehaviour outside the confines of this dispute," in addition to the Seresin matter I cite his NBeale misconduct this month. Rjanag was persistently uncivil to NBeale, again despite the abused editor raising Rjanag's misbehavior to him repeatedly. There are also assertions that Rjanag abused his admin powers. Matters flared when NBeale questioned the propriety of Rjanag's speedy delete of an article. In apparent retribution, a mere 32 minutes later, Rjanag tagged NBeale with a 3RR notice for revisions Rjanag had made on 3 separate days on a completely unrelated article. NBeale asked that Rjanag stop, and complained that Rjanag was acting aggressively. Rjanag responded with the uncivil edit summary: “grow up”, and accused NBeale of being “very immature”. When Rjanag later restored an article requested by NBeale, Rjanag wrote “Per your incessant requests, I have restored the article and 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 that it would be snow closed. It was, by Black Kite. After 1 hour and 15 minutes, and without the article author having a chance to state his case. NBeale wrote Rjanag: “this level of aggression (completely unique in my experience...) really makes it hard to work effectively." Rjanag responded: “Do you just not know how to read?”, then accused NBeale of “ranting”, and later accused him of being “immature”. Backslash Forwardslash then joined the conversation, supporting Rjanag. The full history and substance of their dispute, and who was "correct", is beside the point as what is at issue is Rjanag's misconduct (we should be on guard against editors trying to divert the conversation away from Rjanag's behavior to the (irrelevant) substance of the dispute). I don't know if NBeale wishes to add his name as an interested party here, but I will pay him the courtesy of letting him know I quoted from his discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC) •Alefbe misconduct. And also this month, while edit-warring with Alefbe (the editor who was the focus of the behavior discussed by Seresin above), Rjanag used his admin powers to block the editor. Alefbe was very upset about Rjanag abusing his admin blocking powers to block someone with whom Rjanag had a personal dispute. I will also pay Alefbe the courtesy of letting him know I referenced his discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note: Pending a trimming of this statement by Epeefleche, the majority of the above text is hidden. AGK 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Statement by Backslash Forwardslash

How nice that rather than contest an AfD result to the closer, an editor goes to ANI then arbitration. I'll keep my comments short. Me and Rjanag are friends, we've been editing for roughly the same time at DYK and the like. I don't, however, go around fighting his battles. I regularly close AfDs. This AfD was one of the few open at the time, so I closed it. Most of the comments were long winded and irrelevant, and I must confess I skimmed over a lot of the interaction between Rjanag and Epeefleche, because it wasn't contributing to consensus. Yes Rjanag was borderline civil, but I can't blame him for getting frustrated at an editor who was indeed equally unhelpful. Just because he's an admin doesn't mean he can't be human. Even if I were to ignore Rjanag's contribution to the AfD completely, there would still be a consensus to delete the articles. "No consensus" closures are not the equivalent of keeps, and it is very standard practice to nominate something again after it has closed as no consensus at AfD. If you are really that concerned about the closure, WP:DRV is the way to go, not Arbitration. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments: I'm willing to acknowledge the appearance of COI, but I still stand by the fact that delete was the correct result of the AfD. I didn't let my friendship with Rjanag cloud my judgement; and I wouldn't have closed the AfD if I was aware of how much conflict and history there was between the two users. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Greg L

I had, and have, no particular interest in the article that was the subject of the dispute (The Shells). Nor do I recall having previously crossed paths with Epeefleche. Somewhere, however, we must have crossed paths since he left a note on my talk page about the AfD on the article. On the first AfD, I was struck by the exceedingly confrontational style of Rjanag’s. I would say that style amounts to “the best defense is a strong offense” and he seems to embrace that principle with total abandon. In the second AfD (after Rjanag didn’t get his way in the first), Rjanag was even more confrontational. His style was to inflame things at every step of the way.

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. In particular, Rjanag didn’t overtly use any of his “formal” admin powers to accomplish his end. However, I see no legitimate basis for him to hide behind the apron strings of that wikilawyering defense. For one thing, any ordinary editor is working uphill when dealing with someone they know to be an admin. And one doesn’t have to have fallen off a turnip truck to realize that Wikipedia is as much a social venue as it is an editing one; admins “hang” together, e-mail one another, and scratch each others’ backs. I utterly reject the closing action and rationale of Backslash Forwardslash when he closed the second AfD. By my count, the vote was 13 to 11 in favor of deleting the article. Had one single editor changed his vote, it would have been evenly divided at 12/12. And, just pardon me all over the place for stating the obvious about common sense, but any band that has been been written up in Seventeen magazine (a major periodical in the U.S.) pretty much defines what constitutes notability. The rationale that Backslash Forwardslash cited for siding with his admin friend simply exhibited a total cluelessness of what constitutes a Wikipedia-style consensus and speaks straight to the heart of what happens when admins start running rogue.

The simple fact is that even though an admin does not “overtly” employ any magical admin powers does not insulate the community from the chilling effect admins have when they run rogue upon other regular editors; is not a “fair fight” by its very nature. No more so than some cop who once pulled me over for a speeding ticket:

Cop: “Do you know what the speed limit is back there?”

Me: (venturing a guess with eyebrows raised): Thirty-five miles per hour??”

Cop: (He had his arms folded across his chest. Now he reaches up to his lips, flips a toothpick from one side to the other, hoists his gun belt up a couple of inches with both hands, re-folds them across his chest, and asks…): “Now where is it posted that the speed is thirty-five?”

• A cop using his amazing and profound ‘Lt. Callahan’ street-smart powers®™© and Jedi mind games to catch a criminal doing 12 over the speed limit: $123
  
• Acting like a stereotypical, movie cliché cop on a total power trip who watched Cool Hand Luke and got carried away: Priceless.

I would like to have said “Wow! Just look at you as you go wild with your power trip, hoist your gun belt up, re-cross your arms and put on that ‘I’m just too damn tough act’ for me.” That I grew old enough to now have a grandchild speaks to the point that I know when to keep my trap shut.

Admins on Wikipedia have this same relationship with regular editors. Yes, I know that the “official” line is that they don’t “punish” and, as stated by someone at the previous AN/I, Rjanag is “just an editor who has some extra tools.” It’s certainly ‘pretty to think so’ that all admins can do is spread peace, love, and understanding; but I’m talking about the reality here. Admins have virtual carte blanch to be rude and overbearing and we regular editors must pretty much take it on the chin. It takes someone with no fear of authority whatsoever to stand up to what I feel is pure, unadulterated bullying.

I don’t care to engage in endless wikilawyering here over whether Rjanag employed special admin powers when he misbehaved and whether that merits de-sysoping. His behavior, rather than upholding the best examples of an admin, were the complete opposite and he has no business being an admin. I have been around the block long enough to completely “have Rjanag’s number.” Power has completely gone to his head and when he doesn’t get his way, he can’t let go. “Assuming good faith” with Rjanag does not require that we “abandon common sense” in the face of an editor who consistently exhibits bad faith. Rjanag got his powers and special privileges from the community with the consent of the community. He retains his powers with the consent of the community; it is not a life-time entitlement with impunity (though he behaves as if it is). Greg L (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

---

P.S. I slept on this overnight. Going through my mind was Rjanag’ unapologetic attitude. I was coming here to add an entirely different postscript; one addressing the point that his above response exhibited a wholly defiant attitude over how his actions these last several weeks towards Epeefleche had all been washed by unicorn tears.

I see now that he left a personal note on my talk page, struck his previous statement here, and has posted an apology. I am not sufficiently familiar with Rjanag to assess whether his apology comes from the heart or is the product of wise behind-the-scenes counsel from friends. I would like to think it is the former. But I fear it could certainly be the later.

What is not at stake here for Rjanag and Wikipedia is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the burden of proof is not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In deciding whether or not Rjanag should retain his access to “special tools,” the community, which granted Rjanag those privileges, need only use common sense as to whether Wikipedia and the Wikipedian community is better off by allowing him to retain access to those tools and privileges. 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 would prefer to have nothing more to do with this matter. I try to come to Wikipedia to improve articles. Instead, I tend to get wound around the axle of wikidrama, which I detest. I also find myself tending to support the underdog in all-matters-unfair. In this particular case, Epeefleche got crosswise with Rjanag over a non-free illustration, lipped off to Rjanag in the process (contempt of cop), and Rjanag flippantly dismissed Epeefleche with what amounted to “Yeah… whatever. Your article will be deleted anyway.” I saw nothing but conflict and needless provocation on that thread. I saw nothing in later, related threads to change my view of Rjanag and his “style.”

Clearly, many Wikipedians are as motivated—or more so—by social interaction as they are by contributing to Wikipedia. That aspect tends to take too many of us off track of why the heck we’re all supposed to be here as Wikipedians: to improve and add to Wikipedia to make it a higher quality product. This was precisely what Epeefleche was busy doing: minding his own business creating a new article about a folk band that was a finalist in an MTV contest and had been covered in Seventeen magazine. Rjanag was the admin there dealing with Epeefleche on the subject of copyright issues and he was the one responsible for not escalating tensions to truly absurd proportions whenever yet another editor disagreed with him.

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. I want Rjanag and/or the Arb committee to make things right by Epeefleche. 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) 19:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Breakout New York City Artist Award
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [12], 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)

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)

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:VMAsNYCUser: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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [13]) 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)

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)

@ 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)

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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 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)
    • 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)
• Decline. As Nmcvocalist notes, there are other avenues yet left to resolve this matter. Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• 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)