Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:39, 22 May 2009

Request name	Initiated	Votes
A Man In Black	20 May 2009	{{{votes}}}
Collect	18 May 2009	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Individualist anarchism\|Individualist anarchism]]	18 May 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	30 September 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 September 2024
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing	none	(orig. case)	30 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Giano II Wheel War

Initiated by Sandstein at 13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Listed by the filing party

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Listed by Jehochman (talk · contribs)

Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
David D. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
~~FlyingToaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)~~ to be addressed in a separate case if not resolved by ongoing discussions

Listed by Wizardman (talk · contribs)

Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Listed by Tznkai (talk · contribs)

Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Moni3 notified at [1]. I will also inform all editors named in my statement of the existence of this request. Sandstein 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The dispute arises from the events detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Giano II blocked for civility issues; pertinent discussion is also at User talk:Moni3#The Giano matter.

The case involves wheel-warring (and, at [2], threats of blocks) among administrators. Per WP:Arbitration, the Committee will generally accept unusually divisive disputes among administrators without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed. Sandstein 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Flying Toaster RfA (this link will need to be updated when the thread is archived)

Statement by Sandstein

I ask the Committee to examine my conduct and that of my administrator colleague Moni3 in the dispute surrounding the blocks and unblocks of Giano II (talk · contribs) at the ANI thread linked to above.

At 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC), Prodego (talk · contribs) blocked Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three weeks for incivility. Extended discussion at WP:ANI ensued, where the preponderance of opinion – as I read it – supported the block. At 00:32, Giano II declared at [3] that he has left the project, and has not edited since.

At 04:58, David D. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Giano II. This action was generally criticised in the ANI discussion, which led to David D. stating at [4] that "if anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so.". Previously unaware of the dispute, I reinstated the original block at 09:12 after reading the thread, explaining why I did so at [5]. At 11:36, David D. confirmed at [6] that, having given his consent to being reverted, he would support my re-block.

At 12:20, Moni3 reduced the block duration of Giano II to 24 hours, explaining in pertinent part at [7] that "I know it wheel wars, but I don't care. Seriously, folks. Get your priorities in order. Content is first always, and it makes people lazy to make decisions based on a string of bad words." She later added at [8] that "consensus doesn't always rule over what is just and right."

After having asked Moni3 to undo her action ([9]), which she declined ([10]), I reluctantly ask the Committee to intervene with such remedies as it may deem appropriate, because it has repeatedly and rightly held that wheel warring is unacceptable, particularly when – as here – the administriative actions at issue are, by the wheel warrior's own admission, contrary to consensus.

I propose that the scope of this case (and any statements below) be limited to the administrative actions of Moni3 and I, and not also to the drama-ridden dispute between Xeno (talk · contribs) and Giano II which triggered these actions. Sandstein 13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with respect to Jehochman's proposal to expand the scope of this case: I recommend to keep the scope of this case limited to the blocks and unblocks of Giano II. I am ignorant of any issues with FlyingToaster (talk · contribs) and do not see how he or she is relevant here. Sandstein 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The original block of Giano was excessive, punitive and wrong. I ask the committee to look into the entire matter of all those administrators who either blocked or unblocked Giano.

I also ask the Committee to look into the very serious allegations that User:FlyingToaster lied during her recent RFA. She claimed to have written a number of articles. Upon inspection it was found that many of these articles were either plagiarism or copyright violations. These accusations are extremely serious and the community is unlikely to resolve them because of deep divides and a lack of a de-sysopping process. The dispute over FlyingToaster's RFA precipitated Giano's excessive response. It does not make sense to arbitrate the reaction while ignoring the underlying dispute.

As for Xeno, that matter seems to be resolved and does not require arbitration. Xeno has apologized to Giano. I am very unclear why some people refuse to acknowledge that the block of Giano is no longer preventative. It seems that there is a strong element of retaliation against Giano for bringing the improper editing of FlyingToaster to light.

Thank you. I will add ~~FlyingToaster and~~ some other parties to the list. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of a matter before using tools. The sequence of events was that FlyingToaster had an RFA a few days ago. Giano raised concerns. Upon closer inspection, these concerns were found to be colorable. Various editors dismissed the concerns, causing Giano to become upset. Xeno then unwisely and unwittingly baited Giano very severely. Giano, predictably, exploded. The usual block-unblock cycle ensued. It would be foolish to only look at the last step in this closely related chain of events. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman, the wheel warring can be dealt with by motion, I believe. A stern warning or temporary desysop should suffice. The matter of FlyingToaster might be premature because there is a good chance she may resign. However, if she does not, we will be back with that matter in a few days. If you go forward with a case rather than a motion, you'd better include the entire dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xeno

As the one who set this snowball rolling, I'm obviously feeling quite silly right now for this whole mess I inadvertently created. It's clear there's strong feelings about the blocks/unblocks/etc. I urged unblocking [11] [12] and took responsibility in part for Giano's comments made at me, thus the block no longer seemed necessary. I think all the administrators were acting in good faith and urge rejection of this case; imo no good can come of it. –xeno ^talk 14:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juliancolton

What is the focus of this case? Giano's block? FlyingToaster's RfA? I'm confused... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

All blocks on Giano lead to admin fighting, wheel warring, and back and forth with the block buttons. If Giano sneezed, he would probably be blocked and have this situation happen. So, lets ignore what caused the situation. Instead, everyone should focus on the actions being 100% the same as every other time Giano is blocked. Is Arbitration needed? No, because ArbCom cannot affect the mindsets of tens of thousands of users that will play this very same role sometime in the future. It is inevitable. ArbCom should spend their time trying to stop things that they might actually be able to change - such as the Earth orbiting the sun, gravity affecting the planet, or that whole wacky "season" bs that we keep going through. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TreasuryTag

I urge the Committee to reject the case, admonish those wheel-warring, re-instate the block for the ~20 days remaining (since the consensus seems to tend that way), invite Giano to return to active, co-operative and friendly editing once the block expires, and instruct everyone to accept FlyingToaster’s statement that she accepts she did some wrong unintentionally and means to fix it, and move on swiftly. Too much drama already. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Anonymous Dissident

(edit conflict) I agree that FT and related parties should be omitted, however, re: the "retirement" of Giano, I understand that he has permanently resigned from Wikipedia numerous times before, scrambling his password on more than one occasion. His announced departure this time shouldn't be treated as 100% gospel. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

As one of a very few users whose block of Giano has not led to an unblock or wheel war, I recommend rejection of this as it would serve to generate exponentially more heat than light. Giano is gone, some users have learned more about WP:C, and the wheel-warring, though tiresome, is moot. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Anonymous Dissident

Giano's gone, so this is flying on its own steam for no particular reason now. I also cannot comprehend the addition of FlyingToaster to the involved parties. This case concerns a wheel war over the blocking of Giano II. You may just as well add my name to the involved parties as the bureaucrat who closed the RfA. The line has to be drawn somewhere. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Juliancolton

See Sandstein's clarification at 14:18. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Giano will probably come back. But I doubt if the situation will re-ignite when he does. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Philippe

Giano's behavior was extreme, and the initial block was appropriate, in my opinion. Where we began to veer off the rails was the unblock, then reblock... it seems that perhaps the committee should step in and - yet again - make clear that we as a community will not tolerate incivility (in any of its forms) but will tolerate continued incivility even less. We also will not tolerate wheel-warring. It's sad that the committee has been put into this position again, but it appears that the lessons have not been learned. I urge the committee to accept the case and examine the behavior of those modifying the original blocks outside of consensus, as well as the behavior that precipitated this situation. - Philippe 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher

Under Arbcom convention, established by decisions taken and cases rejected, the second action does not constitute wheel-warring, no matter whether it was done with or without discussion or consensus, it takes 3+ actions to make a wheel war. So, the reblock by Sandstein was potentially a wheel war, but since David gave his assent, it is not, and the counter resets. Since the block reduction by Moni was the second action in the new series, it was not wheel-warring either. Therefore, this was all perfectly acceptable and non-sanctionable admin behavior, according to Arbcom precedent. Just an ordinary day around the water cooler, nothing to see, move along.^a

Not wishing to comment on this case, as I don't know all the details, but regarding Thatcher's definition of wheel-warring, I was desysopped for six months for undoing FT2's block of Giano. Even though it was only the second action, and one undo, it was regarded as wheel-warring. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not agree with the current definition of wheel warring. I personally think that when one admin decides that his or her own judgement is so obviously superior and correct that it is acceptable to revert another admin without consultation or community consensus, that user lacks the qualities needed to be a good admin, at least at that particular time. However, I have previously filed a wheel-warring case, which was rejected because there was only one revert, and many similar cases have also been rejected. SlimVirgin's experience (and that of a few others I could name if I was not too lazy to look it up) shows that wheel-warring means the second action only if you are reverting an Arbitrator or Jimbo. In every other case I can recall, Arbcom has applied bold–revert–discuss, meaning the second action is not wheel-warring, and with the consequence that the reverting admin in any controversy is placed in a de facto superior position to the first admin. I think it stinks, hence the footnoted link (which was intended as a perhaps too subtle clue that I was not entirely on board with the situation as it stands.)

This is as good as place as any to make some general comments on administrator status:

It should be easily granted and easily removed.
Any admin who plaigarizes should be desysopped immediately, preferably by the stewards on the grounds of protecting the Foundation, then given a second RFA when the problems are corrected (preferably with the user's assistance).
Any admin who edit-wars should be removed for conduct unbecoming.
Any admin who baits another editor, no matter the provocation, should be removed for conduct unbecoming.

Whatever. Thatcher 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the one-undo definition of wheel-warring too, but I also disagree that anyone undoing an admin's actions without discussion is a poor admin. It's an important principle of adminning (or used to be) that we not follow the crowd like sheep. When you see an admin block someone they're involved in long-term disputes with, for example, it's important to unblock quickly, so that the point gets across. It follows from this that I also disagree with "grant it and remove it easily." Granting it should be tougher, but sensibly so. We currently give it to anyone who knows which one of 50 templates should be placed on the page of a vandal who has committed four offences but only ever on Tuesday afternoons. We pay almost no attention to whether they can edit, or have shown any common sense. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably in the example you cite the community would come to a consensus pretty quickly. Thatcher 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aitias

After Giano II (talk · contribs) had been blocked by Prodego (talk · contribs) there was strong endorsement of that block on WP:AN/I, cf. [13]. More important, there was extreme opposition to a block reduction, cf. [14] and nothing near a consensus for it — much the opposite. Despite this obvious consensus for the block and the even more obvious consensus against a reduction/unblock, Giano II (talk · contribs) was unblocked by David D. (talk · contribs) — this already constituted wheel warring, and, more important, was against consensus. Therefore the block was reinstated by Sandstein (talk · contribs) in agreement with the unblocking admin. Again, this reblock was heavily endorsed, cf. [15]. Then, Giano II (talk · contribs)’s block was reduced to 24 hours —again, despite the obvious consensus against a block reduction/unblock— by Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): This clearly constitutes an egregious instance of wheel warring and was both completely out of process and acting against consensus. Therefore the original block should be reinstated by motion as soon as possible and a case should be accepted in the light of the egregious wheel warring. — Aitias // discussion 15:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SoWhy

The administrative conduct regarding this issue should be looked into but the FlyingToaster affair is nothing that fits into this situation at hand. The dispute between Xeno and Giano II was not about that, nor was any other discussion at ANI. I suggest to Jenochman and those who want the FlyingToaster situation at ArbCom to untangle it from this case and create a new request. After all, it's not only Giano II who raised those concerns and if they should be looked into, they should be considered separately. Everything else would be confusing. Regards So Why 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Minkythecat

The FT affair is entirely relevant for this, and should be investigated; not purely for the plagiarism, a separate issue, but because it was the trigger point for the whole blocking debacle.

Giano made his views well known on FT at BN. Prodego asks Giano to be civil [16] - not deeming that comment to be worthy of any action. Xeno then posts a taunting message aimed at Giano over a page Giano had re-written [17]. Giano replies, civilly [18].

ONE minute after posting the above taunting Giano, Xeno started making a series of edits to the page in question, starting from [19]. A page he hadn't contributed to previously. Some of the edits made the quality slightly poorer.

This, in my opinion, was nothing more than a deliberate, cynical attempt to bait Giano, knowing he'd react. The admin who banned him? Prodego. The whole sequence reads to me as either a concerted stitch-up or Xeno deliberately taking advantage of that "warning" by Prodego.

To state the FT saga on BN had zero to do with this is totally and utterly wrong. Xeno clearly baits Giano over a page, then makes edits to those page - most of which have been reverted.

If this whole issue is looked at, then the entire issue needs looking at - those particular comments on the FA discussion clearly paint a different picture to the "wah, nasty Giano abused me" story being presented by some. I do not believe the wheel warring can be examined without also examining the underlying cause for the block in the first place - namely the activities of Xeno and Prodego stemming from the FT thread on BN.Minkythecat (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

~~I think it's likely that the FT situation will need Arbcom resolution. However I think the course of wisdom would be to handle the cases separately.~~ This case should start with the interaction between Giano & Xeno, the original block, and the later admin actions. This should be a nice clean case with a limited set of evidence. ~~The FT situation is likely to be more complex and messy. For clarity that key issue should be handled separately free of the side conflicts that spun off.~~--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck portion no longer needed per recent events--Cube lurker (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I originally thought and did decide that this was too controversial to join in discussion. However I've reconsidered and believe that while the ethics of the FT should not be acted on with this thread the committee should review them and the subsequent actions of those involved. If this thread is about wheel warring then there should be clear avenues to find out the cause. unfortunately that roots back to FT. Gotta look at the whole picture to understand things, sometimes just looking at whats convienant or on the obvious surface can lead to different insights. Xeno admitted they did things that was not Kosher and obviously Giano reacted so why add more fuel to that spent fire? Anyone rememebr high school algebra, how that one variable could flip an entire problem on it's head and make it a completely different issue, that's what we're dealing with here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by X!

I'm not sure why FlyingToaster's RfA is being brought up right here right now, but I'd like to say that this case is for Giano only. As for whether the original block was appropriate, I think that it was entirely appropriate. It doesn't matter how much content one can produce, if they're attacking other editors, then a block is needed. When David unblocked Giano, there was strong support for the block at ANI, but he still unblocked. After being reblocked, Moni reduced it to 24 hours again going against consensus at ANI. This is wheel warring. What else could it be? In conslusion, I would strongly urge the arbitrators to accept this case. This is just disgraceful, and higher action is needed. X clamation point 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phil Sandifer

As the adage goes, the only consistent element in Giano's troubles is Giano.

Perhaps the arbcom will, for once, not be so cowardly as to ignore this fact, and ignore the shocking legacy of personal attacks and abuse from Giano, and to deal with the root problem that causes these cases to recur.

But I do not have high hopes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tznkai's wise invocation of belling the cat, the arbitrators ran for the position of cat-bellers, and were elected by the community to bell cats. Belling this particular cat is as simple as typing a few words into a web browser. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

I may or may not muster the energy to say something more useful, seeing as I was one of the early responding administrators who tried to resolve this situation peacefully, but for now I have only this to say: Ban the lot of us (including the all of us making statements) for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. If this gets any more stupid before I get back to the computer, I may well turn in my bits. In the mean time, someone please:

Fix the BLP that started this mess. (refs, copyedits)
Work on a plagiarism standard for the tangentially related but still important issue.
And the other boring low drama work that no-one else (myself included in this case) will do.
Anyone who has a brilliant solution to this mess, please read bell the cat. Its informative to how you look to others.

Also, next time anyone wants to step in and block or unblock in something that looks like it could be a wheel war, it is a wheel war. Don't do it, it isn't worth it. Exhaust every other tool in your disposal, call in favors, e-mail the damned committee. --Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more important point. We (the administrators) are a team damn it! Lets act like it for once!

I fully stand behind everything Cenarium said, and MastCell's analysis below.--Tznkai (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clerks Please consider reverting this edit as off topic and a policy violation.--Tznkai (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Coren:

While I appreciate that you are gung-ho about clarifying these very important issues, a case by its nature examines the specific conduct of specific users in specific incidents, making it impossible to focus on just those questions.--Tznkai (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pastor Theo

As someone who participated in the AN discussion of this case, I seem to recall that consensus was overwhelmingly supportive of the blocking action only among the admins. Non-admins who offered their observations pointed out a double standard – that the non-admin Giano was being blocked while the admin Xeno was not being blocked, even though both behaved poorly in this situation. The division between admins and non-admins is amplified by the statement prior to mine, where admins are defined as “a team” – does that make the non-admins spectators in the cheap seats? Aren’t we all on the same team?

It also needs to be pointed out that Xeno specifically requested that Giano be unblocked while this drama was playing and that he has repeated the request here. I would second that motion and ask that this case be dismissed as a misunderstanding that went out of control.

As for Flying Toaster – that’s another case. Pastor Theo (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Respectfully request removal of FlyingToaster's name. At the present time she is working hard at reviewing and correcting the citations and related text at articles she created before her RfA. Getting named in a tangential arbitration would likely slow down that effort. If a case is going to arise over her RfA, would be much better all around to request it separately. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cenarium

This situation reflects again a persistent disorder affecting Wikipedia administration, instead of trying to compromise and find amicable solutions, or simply dropping the matter when nothing positive for Wikipedia in one sense or the other will come, it's infuriated and artificially made worse. Another related problem affecting Wikipedia administration is the "on diff" enforcement policy, that is, sometimes policies are enforced, e.g. a block of an editor, based on a single diff, without consideration and attempt to resolve the broader situation to prevent continuation of policy violations, and analysis of the behavior of other parties. Some would be surprised to see that it can work, if tried, and can have better results, especially in the longer term. Yet another problem are some users who comment at ANI without analyzing the situation, or with comments which cannot generate a consensus (to put it mildly). I heard for example "good block", and I wonder how a block can be good, especially when it's against a productive article writer, a block may be "within admin's discretion", "necessary in this case", but not "good". As for the unblock, I would say it was unwise, but not done forcefully, as the unblocking admin consented to be overturned, which happened. Now, for the block reduction, Giano is retired, so what's the point to have him blocked, or not ? If reimplemented or made longer, would it be purely for the sake of blocking or for, then, a virtual enforcement, or as punishment ? The reduction can be understood, as a courtesy or sympathy from another article writer feeling Giano was treated unfairly by Xeno, and that the block was excessively long. Should really Moni3 be pursued overt this ? I thought we had no military rules over here, can't we be done with it, now ? It's certainly not a wheel war, at this time, requiring arbitration. I don't see what can be achieved through the acceptance of this case, so I urge rejection. Cenarium (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

Please don't take this case. No good will come of it. Enough damage has been done. Sandstein, Moni3, and David D. are all good admins. If a case is opened, it will involve a lot of verbiage and no more than admonishments, at most. In a best case scenario, it will be a distraction. In a more likely scenario, we'll lose or alienate more good people. If you want a technical rationale for declining it, you can use Thatcher's. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

Prodego should've really known better to block Giano before bringing it to the community first. Xeno should've known better not to poke the bear. A day might've been warranted, but three weeks is excessively punitive. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tex

Agree with the above. No good can come of this case. Xeno shouldn't have provoked Giano, Giano shouldn't have gone overboard with his response, Prodego shouldn't have blocked for 3 weeks and someone should have reduced the block length to a more appropriate level. I, for one, congratulate Moni3 for having the moxie to do what others would not. This case was only brought here because of hurt feelings. Meanwhile we have lost a wonderful writer.

Statement by William M. Connolley

Prodego's original block was good. Arbcomm should confirm this, and state clearly that WP:CIVIL applies to us all.
David D.'s unblock was bad, and arbcomm should tell him so, since he does not yet seem to have admitted it. It was also arguably wheel warring; arbcomm should clarify whether it was or not.
Sandstein's re-block was good. Arbcomm should confirm this. Since DD had said "if anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so." it seems likely that S's re-block wasn't wheel-warring, but for the sake of clarity Arbcomm should confirm this.
Moni3's reduction to 24h was bad, and clearly wheel-warring, as she knew at the time. Arbcomm should consider a sanction such as loss of adminship for a month, and indicate their disapproval by restoring the block.
FT's RFA is important, but not to this case.

If you're not aware of my prior history, then you may wish to see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley.

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

Jesus Christ. Another Giano case? Either work to improve the encyclopedia or kindly leave. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General ramblings of a madman by Nick

Could Arbcom please state why we are all supposedly here - is it to write an encyclopedia, to indulge in petty bureaucracy or engage in vexatious litigation ?

Surely enough damage has been done to the community, a very experienced content contributor has left, there's the possibility of administrators facing sanctions and there is significantly more bad blood and animosity now than there was as a result of Giano's comments, so what's the best course of action in these circumstances, following the rules to the letter, or ignoring the rules for the benefit of the community. Nick (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

Pardon me for interupting, and I realize that I don't I have the tenure to be posting to 'crat boards outside any items which would directly involve me. However, I was hoping to mention an item that I hoped everyone would consider.

The entire Giano incident (the current one), seems to me to stem from the interactions of Xeno and Giano. As I understand it, and I've done some extensive reading over the last couple days, their communication revolved around edits to the article: Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer. I looked through the article history, and have not found any edits by User:FlyingToaster in that article. I also reviewed the thread on Xeno's talk page #Madame_la_Comtesse! here, once again I see no comments by or about FT, and in fact, no mention of FT up to and including the discussion of the block in any manner. My point is: The fact that someone may, or may not, have been upset due to some recent (and unrelated) event, doesn't seem to me to be a reason to pull an editor into an RFAR case of wheel wars. If I were to be having a disagreement with User:ABC on article 123. And at a later time violated a policy such as NPA or CIV while talking to User:XYZ about article 789 - then the item which should be evaluated would be my interactions with XYZ. If I wished to open a separate thread or discussion about ABC, fine, but it is a separate matter.

That's not an opinion on whether or not there should, or should not, be a RFAR on the FT RfA. That is not my place to opine one way or the other. That's also not any reflection on any editor here, I have the utmost respect for all the people involved, and truly believe that everyone is only attempting to make Wikipedia a better website. Personally, I'd like to see all these matters dropped, and everyone just get back to other tasks - but, I realize that may not happen. Either way, as others have more eloquently stated, they really are two separate items, and I think that dealing with either in any way other than individual RFARs would only confuse both issues. Thank you for your time, and Best to all. — Ched : ? 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the timing, it appears that the FT RfA is now a moot point. — Ched : ? 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Statement by Rootology

Can we please get a Checkuser or three to review this followed by a swift 30 day block and a desysop if an admin did this? rootology (C)(T) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reject this case, in hindsight, and also please have the AC start a very broadly advertised RFC to define Wheel Warring and the 'standing' of admin actions once and for all by the Community. We all have various and in some cases smart, but in some cases ridiculous standards. Some people even seem to think that any lone admin action is irreversable, which is preposterous in any sense of, well, anything. I am prompted to ask this because of GWH's statement below, "We have avoided putting too much process in place at WP:WHEEL to avoid creeping bureacracy". That's exactly what we DO need. We run around with some many now-irrelevant (and in some cases dangerous to our mission as it stands in 2009) wikipuritanical ideals that the lack of hard definitions of what admins can do with each other's actions barring IAR that every single solitary time this comes up (not specifically with Giano), we all stand around like buffoons, spout our unique views on WP:WHEEL, and then sling our own muck at each other as we turn into administrative baboons for a few minutes.

We need to come up with a formal, BUREACRATIC definition of what this mystical "Wheel War" truly is, and to what degree admin actions are sacrosanct. I just protect User:Giano II today. If someone unprotects that, is it a Wheel War? If I block someone today, and Admin #2 unblocks them, and I reblock, is it a Wheel War? What if Admin #3 reblocks? Ask 10 admins and you'll get 4-5 answers in all likelihood. If one of them dislikes the other, they'll give another answer to be contrary. AC: Start the RFC, keep it simple--what is a wheel war, and what actions can/should/how be undone if places by another admin? The winners move onto a simple poll--again, that's the only way we'll get fixed consensus. The 'crats can close it down afterwards. Reject this case, set that course--the Arbs should not decide what a Wheel War is--all of us together should, once and for all, and this is the only reasonable way to do it. No admin, except one who wishes to have some leverage or leeway or that perceives he has "power" which he does not, should be against firm definitions finally existing of what an admin cannot do. We have such limits on 'crats, Arbs, Checkusers, Oversight... it's time we did too. Please do this, AC. rootology (C)(T) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I am concerned particularly here by the standards at which wheel warring is defined. I believe an Arbcom case clarification would be helpful.

We need to have a useful and usable administrators standard for the level of care that administrators are expected to use when reversing each others decisions. What we're getting are a long sequence of bad cases to set precedent under - where there are conflicting underlying facts, and everyone is clearly acting in good faith - but in which ultimately administrators have repeatedly reversed each other with poor communications before the administrator action.

Thatcher's comments above constitute a justification to avoid following this thread of reasoning, but I believe that evades the underlying problem here. It is a problem not that administrators are reversing each other, but that they aren't taking due care in discussion and consensus prior to the reversals.

David D. did not actively participate in the discussion prior to unblocking, did not notify the blocking administrator prior to unblocking, and admitted that he had done so ( ex [20] ). He admitted that consensus appeared to be against the unblock at the time.

Sandstein reblocked, also without prior participation in the discussions ( [21] ). He stated that administrator consensus appeared to be that the unblock was improper, but did not notify the unblocking adminstrator prior to the reblock or notify the noticeboard prior to the reblock and seek further specific input or discussion.

Moni3 did comment in the ANI discussion about 14 hours before reducing the block duration - but did not reengage in discussion on ANI or discuss with Sandstein prior to the block length reduction.

I think that there are valid underlying questions on both sides regarding the conduct, provocation, circumstances, etc. There's been plenty of discussion on all these points. However, even with a blatantly wrong administrator action, our expectations of collegial behavior within the administrator community are that we would consult the initial or immediately prior administrator to at least advise them, and ask for input, and also with the community.

We have avoided putting too much process in place at WP:WHEEL to avoid creeping bureacracy - but what that's meant is that we now have too little process in place to encourage tired or frustrated admins to do the right thing and talk things out sufficiently prior to undoing or redoing each other's actions. Even a blatantly factually correct reversal is wrong if we don't respect the earlier admin(s) or community enough to involve them in the change.

I will take this up within the community context if Arbcom choses not to - but I believe it's ripe for exploration in a case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved TML

Having observed many of Giano's previous "departures," I can no longer take his "departure" announcements at face value. As such, I would definitely not be surprised if he returns to regular editing sooner or later, as that has always been the case in the past. TML (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jennavecia

I was the admin pointing out the double standard of Scarian getting a one hour block for notation in his block log and Giano getting three weeks. This whole situation is a big ball of fail. I don't even know where to begin. I'll just be brief. The project is to build an encyclopedia. Being as anyone can edit, we have users of all different everythings. This includes some brats, some stupid people, some grumpy old men, etc. (Aimed at no one in particular). The thing is, you can't expect all these people to get along all of the time. Some of them ever. It's human nature, and there's nowhere on this project to argue freely. So, of course, people will snap. Giano's gotten a raw deal with too many bad blocks, to the point that the legit blocks become an issue. A key thing to remember is our purpose. We're here to build an encyclopedia. The most important aspect in that is content creation and improvement. Few people produce higher quality content than Giano. He snaps off on people... big deal. If the drama-mongerers were spending less time drama-mongering and more time improving content, there wouldn't be an issue.

How about this, ArbCom: Accept the case, assume Giano will return, as he (thankfully) always does, and put forth something that says Giano isn't to be blocked without consensus among admins following a block request by the person he flipped out on. In a case such as this, where Xeno baited Giano, Giano flipped out and upset Prodego's delicate sensibilities, we should not see a block. Much less a block for three damn weeks. How is that preventative? Really? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of allowing punitive blocks, but come on. Three weeks for one of our most prolific content creators because he allowed himself to be trolled?

People need to take a step back, look at the big picture, and refocus. The project doesn't need civility police. Three words: Get over it. It's not all rainbows and butterflies in the real world, and Wikipedia shouldn't be expected to be any different. لenna vecia 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Prodego

I'll spare you of hearing my disappointment that what was a productive discussion came to this. I will note though that the block on Giano is not stable. If this case is declined, I am not sure what will happen with that block. Administrator consensus does not seem to stop admins from changing it, perhaps arbcom's would. Prodego ^talk 03:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/2/0/0)

Accept on the wheel warring matter. It sounds like Jehochman wants the FlyingToaster situation added into this as well, and I don't think the two issues have enough in common to warrant being mulled together, so I wouldn't have that in the case's scope. Wizardman 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Wizardman. Roger Davies ^talk 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Deja vu. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Please accept as a given my distaste for many aspects of the last couple of days' developments. However, the issues concerning the RfA of Flying Toaster are moot, and I do not believe that an arbitration case on the blocks and unblocks in the fashion framed is likely to produce a useful result. I acknowledge that debate goes on as to whether undoing another administrator's action constitutes wheel-warring or uncollegiality, or whether it is only reinstating the original action that officially commences the wheel war, but I would leave this issue for another day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the definition of wheel warring on blocks and unblocks in general, I have tried to parse some of the confusion in this area. I will post my thoughts on this issue on the talkpage, though perhaps they belong on a subpage or a policy page or a policy RfC somewhere, someday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; I see three questions raised by the incident that need answering. (a) What is wheel warring? (b) Are there cases where what would otherwise be strictly construed as wheel warring is justifiable (especially when consensus is factored into it)? (c) Is the current incident a case of wheel warring and, if so, was it justifiable? The Committee has, correctly, stated in the past that wheel warring isn't acceptable— but the uncertainty and lack of consensus within the community itself of what is — or is not — acceptable is a contentious issue in itself. A case here would need to focus exclusively on those three questions. — Coren ^(talk) 01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - the underlying problem that caused this mess has been resolved. Improvement of policy can be done without our involvement; we have other things to do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Accept per Coren's reasoning above on wheel-warring, given the doubt. Firmly decline to expand this to include FT, and restrict to discuss action of wheel-warring alone and even leave Giano as peripheral. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black

Involved parties

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Rootology (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[22] I will offer to transfer any comment he has from his talk page to here. rootology (C)(T) 05:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Given the nature of this admin's behavior over time, and over the course of years, I believe we're well past this point. All of our administrators, functionaries--all of us, up to and including Jimbo--must and will be governed by the same standards, or our standards are meaningless. The standards of behavior, especially for anyone "admin or higher" are judged against today's standards, which have been the same for some time. Whether we became admins in May 2009 or May 2001 we are bound by the same standards, and AMiB is well beyond the scope of our acceptable standards. I believe this request is wholly within the AC's purview to accept and process either as an expedited motion(s) or as a full case.

Statement by Rootology

A Man In Black was blocked today for his 12th incident of blatant edit warring since his 2005 successful RFA. He has an extensive and long-term history of edit warring, which is unbecoming of an administrator. Reviewing his block log, which I never actually noticed before tonight, I count 12 valid blocks imposed by other administrators due to his ongoing misbehavior:

1. July 17, 2006: 3RR; 2. December 30, 2006: 3RR; 3. February 9, 2007: 3RR; 4. February 28, 2007: 3RR; 5. March 5, 2007: 3RR; 6. March 9, 2007: 3RR; 7. March 12, 2007: 3RR; 8. March 30, 2007: 3RR; 9. November 19, 2007: edit warring; 10. September 13, 2008: 3RR; 11. February 5, 2009: 3RR; 12. May 20, 2009: 3RR.

He routinely does this (view his block log), and it is an ongoing pattern. Any non-admin warring this often would, at the very least, be any of the following:

Indefinitely blocked
Forced to take a 0RR or 1RR restriction from the community or Arbitration Committee
Be facing some edit restrictions.

In the wake of this latest block, as is often this user's general tone, he is unrelenting in his positions and views, which is at the least unhelpful and likely not acceptable administrative behavior by modern 2009 Wikipedia standards. This one block sequence in particular is troubling, and basically on the surface seems to encapsulate how he views certain things:

09:31, March 30, 2007 A Man In Black (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "A Man In Black (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Leaving)
09:04, March 30, 2007 Dominic (talk | contribs | block) blocked A Man In Black (talk | contribs) (anon. only) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR at Template:Grand Theft Auto games, prior history of blocks for edit warring (see user talk page)) (unblock | change block)

This user in this instance was edit warring with User:Ikip, his principle opponent on the whole inclusion/deletion war, who he had previously blocked on April 26, twenty three days ago, as detailed here for alleged canvassing about the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, which AMiB also put up for MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination). AMiB also created User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon, and Template:AfD/Tagged, made again by Ikip, which AMiB deleted not once but twice in two days claiming WP:POINT. Others can supply other more recent evidence of his edit warring at recent RFCs. In short, this is an ongoing pattern that shows no signs of stopping now over the course of years. I ask the Committee to:

Review AMiB's status and standing as an administrator in light of this ongoing history, and committment to edit warring and disruption.
Review AMiB's actions of using admin tools in a dispute (the block of Ikip).
Should AMiB retain his tools, face a permanent restriction of their use in regards to Ikip.
Should AMiB retain his tools, face a permanent restriction of their use in regards to anything related to our xFD processes, "broadly construed", if evidence is presented of misuse related to this (which seems often hinted at, but I can't find at a quick glance).
Strongly consider a 0RR or 1RR permanent restriction on him on all parts of Wikipedia, enforceable by block by uninvolved administrators.

Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick answers

John: That is common for placement of Article FAQs, location-wise, that I've seen. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bainer: I won't have time to look myself for a day or two, but I suspect others are reviewing this indepth right now. A quick look however turns up Template:AfD/Tagged, made again by Ikip, which AMiB deleted not once but twice in two days claiming WP:POINT. That's 3x now that he--deeply involved in the metawars of AFD with Ikip--used his tools in regards to Ikip. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride, Stifle, Ncmvocalist: As Casliber said, any RFC over any of these people is going to fall apart into partisan sqawking like the various "Characters" things with people like TTN & Pixelface before, on the 1st generation of these wars. These people are wholly entrenched, and the issue is AMiB's ongoing patterns of behavior which are frankly unbecoming of an administrator--he's argumentative, intractable, prone by clear evidence to edit war, used his tools repeatedly vs. a user he is involved with (Ikip) and then when finally blocked for 3RR again for 9 days for the latest incident, promptly blamed Ikip for the whole thing on his talk page. If a Checkuser/Oversight member was removed of his status for edit warring over years without a block in place, as seen here, then surely someone is unfit to be an administrator having picked up 12 blocks for edit warring since becoming an admin. Administrator is not some special rank and priviledge that gives us any more leeway on bad behavior--if some non-admin here since 2005 as I have been edit warred and was blocked 3 days, and I did the same thing in similar to matching circumstances, I damned well better pick up a 3 day block myself--or any other admin who did so, up to and including Jimmy--or our entire system of governance is a farce. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger: AMiB does do some infrequent valid admin work, but his block record is unbecoming of an admin, especially as all of that is post-RFA. A hard 0RR or 1RR per week with standard incrementing block enforcement to force discussion over warring, or a broadly construed topic-ban with block enforcement on some combination of: a) *fD related areas; b) Article Rescue Squadron specifically; c) User:Ikip; d) fiction topics would probably eliminate any disruption (but would need a full case with evidence to review). It seems looking quickly that those are the main areas that get AMiB in hot water. If possible, I'd say just the hard block-enforced 0RR or 1RR per week would be fine at the least, but I defer to the AC's collective wisdom. rootology (C)(T) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Man In Black

The first I've heard of Rootology's (rather scattered) objections to me or my conduct is this RFAr. His second post on my talk page ever was notifying me of this RFAr. If he's worried about my editing habits or my administrative actions, there are more-appropriate venues and less adversarial ways to engage me other than going first to RFAr and demanding I be deadminned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

What forms of dispute resolution have been tried previously? The phrase "jump the gun" seems apt here. Here's my idea: we train the AbuseFilter to disallow new Arbitration filings where the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section is a paragraph trying to obfuscate that the answer is "no." --MZMcBride (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by hbdragon88

There has only been one form of formal dispute resolution, so far I can see: an old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Man In Black that was not properly certified (thus deleted) or written in a coherent way by a user who eventually was brought before arbitration. Another (very very old) dispute resolution was a 2007 request for mediation that ended up kind of going nowhere, since the edit war died down and the parties started to talk to each other more and weren't blindly reverting each other.

I honestly don't see what the pressing need is to bring AMIB to arbitration right now; there's no emergency, there's no administrator war going on, and Jimbo Wales didn't refer the case. There may have been 12 blocks since AMIB was granted adminship, but only two blocks this year and only one in 2008. Putting AMIB on the spot for the majority of 3RR violations he incurred two years ago strikes me as being punitive. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by somewhat non-impartial Casliber

I will recuse on this one as I am non-impartial and on the opposite side of the notability and AfD battles. There are many editors involved in this debate who do not descend into edit warring. Furthermore, there was an incident where A Man In Black blocked Ikip for 48 hours on April 26th for alleged canvassing, where there was a rather significant questionmark over involved status:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&user=A+Man+In+Black

I think that a well-circumscribed review of his conduct as an admin is warranted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on why RfC won't work

(1) RfC is not necessarily for review of admin conduct as arbcom review is, and (2) an RfC would lead two lines being drawn in a similar fashion to debates repeated a large number of times at AfD, MfD, DRV etc. We'd have a large page with many proposals and comments and no outcome....and alot of wasted editing, and then it would come here sooner or later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by passaby somewhat involved in earlier edit wars with AMIB Mythsearcher

AMIB some times get so involved he would simply do WP:POINT acts like this one: [23] He is asking for a source for the source in this particular edit, even going as far fetched as asking something like who said the Gundam said in the source is this particular Gundam (While there is only ONE Gundam with the name Gundam with no prefix and suffix.) Just look at this history page and the page before. He is purely lucky that none of these involved parties reported him in such situation. He started to add in redundent fact tags into the article right after the three reverts he made after his edit was reverted by 2 different editors and at the third editor comes in to revert his edit, he started to mess around with the article. I am not saying that he should be punished for this unreported issue, in fact I have revert over 3 times in this edit war if his actions are not considered vandalism. Yet he is surely not one that is doing well as an admin, at least most of the time he was seen abusing his admin power and acting very emotional in edit wars with other parties. MythSearcher^talk 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Stifle

I don't see anything here that an RFC isn't the appropriate venue for. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Vandenberg

I believe that is a quirk of the FAQ template they are using. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Abd

I agree with Stifle, with one reservation. AMIB is blocked, and unblock has been denied, though there is some evidence that the block is punitive and not needed to protect the project from immediate disruption. Instead of blocking, a cease-and-desist order could have been issued, with specific conditions, pending resolution. (If pushing a block button is appropriate, cease-and-desist-or-else would be just as allowable, and any admin should, absent emergency, honor such an order, the same as a block.) Because we have a blocked admin, immediate ArbComm action may be called for. I'd recommend confining ArbComm process here to a consideration of only the most immediate issue, not an overall review of AMIB's history, which may prove, if ArbComm otherwise bounces this case, to be unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the situation with User:MalikCarr. Almost two years ago, AMIB was in a dispute with this editor, see [24], [25], [26], and then blocked this editor, twice, in two successive days. No unblock template was put up because none was suggested. Now, this is clearly old, but ... has the problem ever been acknowledged? And then AMIB again blocked the same editor in November, 2008, not so long ago, see block log, see "discussion" at [27]. No warning, apparently, no regular block notice. This block took place while AMIB's block of Jtrainor was under discussion at AN/I; in that matter, it appears that AMIB was likewise involved in a dispute. While copyvio justifies ignoring recusal policy, it should have been AMIB, then, to take the block to AN/I for review, not another editor. MalikCarr had commented in the AN/I discussion. AMIB did mention it on AN/I but only as the very last post in the prior thread about the Jtrainor block, and such a post could easily be overlooked, it attracted no comment at all even though the Jtrainer thread had heavy participation. However, in the more recent matter of blocking Ikip, AMIB had an emergency justification (canvassing is an emergency as long as !votes count, and we can assume that Ikip's behavior appeared to be canvassing to AMIB, even though the community concluded that it wasn't), and did take the matter to AN/I himself for review. The old matter with MalikCarr could be resolved in a flash if AMIB simply states, "I wouldn't do that again." (Or, because of alleged copyvio, "I'd report it immediately to AN/I in a prominent way.") And so we'd be left with the immediate matter, that AMIB is blocked for a marginal edit war without adequate warning that a block was imminent. Yes, an admin's behavior should be exemplary, but this is a better topic for an RfC or even lesser dispute resolution initially. I see AMIB as being responsive, based on the Ikip block affair. --Abd (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Ikip

The nominator wanted some examples of AMIB's misuse of tools before:

AMIB blocked me for alledged canvassing, he acknowledged that I had broken no rules, and he then repeatedly lied that he was an uninvolved admin in the ANI.[28] "Uninvolved" AMIB had also created an attack page against me before this ANI:

User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon

AMIB deleted a template unilaterally which he was arguing against. [29]
AMIB also blocked two editors who he was in an edit war with which stretched over a year and a half.[30][31] (AMIB left in Nov 2007 and returned in Oct 2008)[32]
AMIB had protected the page twice he was edit warring on, once reverting himself because it was the "wrong version" and he reverted other users on this page an astounding 52 times. See: User:Ikip/amib

Ikip (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Ncmvocalist

Bad idea to accept; time to stop avoiding RfC/U - if there is a repeated problem, a history or something along those lines, then he should be given an opportunity to respond to the wider community's feedback, that is, including a larger number of users that are not deletion debate regulars (for the lack of a better term). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MalikCarr

Since editing Wikipedia, a soul-crushingly large portion of my edits have been content disputes with A Man In Black, as are all but one of my blocks (I suggest the reviewing parties have a look at those for further clarification). While happily ignoring the 3RR because his position is right and the parties reverting him are wrong, he blocks other editors in content disputes - my first block on Wikipedia was over an image, no less. He claimed it was copyvio, I posited that it has all the proper fair use attributions, he said you can't have more than one fair use image in an article (a rather draconian interpretation of Wikipedia's "use as little as possible" rules, especially when I was only trying to keep two images in the article to begin with), and I get blocked for copyright violation. A Man In Black has a systemic "I know better than you" platform and doesn't hesitate to use his administrator's tools to that effect when he gets the inkling that someone disagrees, while simultaneously ignoring other policies that get in the way of his own positions. 12 3RRs is a conservative figure if my experiences with him are indicative, as I've reported him for 3RR at least six times on different articles only to have them protected instead of blocking the offending party (sometimes on his edit no less - how is that productive?). In a nutshell, he blocks you for his interpretation of policy, and disregards the very same when they're not to his benefit. I'd be happy to provide diffs and such on request; it'd be a lot of pages to pile through or else I'd stick them up here and now. MalikCarr (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Stephen Bain: Is this too much? Blocked in content dispute MalikCarr (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

I believe that I am uninvolved in any drama surrounding A Man In Black and I do not recall having had any substantial interactions with him. The continued administrator status of any editor with this sort of block log is patently unacceptable. I recommend that the Committee desysop A Man In Black by motion. Additional dispute resolution attempts are unlikely to be useful here: If a user (let alone an administrator) does not get the message that edit warring is prohibited after the n-th block, a RfC won't make him stop either. Sandstein 19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jtrainor

I don't have much to add to what User:MalikCarr has said; we were involved in basically the same dispute over a few fiction articles. Every single one of my blocks came about as a result of that situation. Anyone who wants to see how AMIB does things as to look no further than his contrib history; he has an ongoing habit of deciding how something should be, and then edit warring to keep it that way, regardless of consensus or policy. It is worth noting that for an extended period of time while an administrator, he had a deletionism-advocating sig, as well, something which is at best disruptive when one works in fiction areas. Jtrainor (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Recuse - per my involvement. Tiptoety ^talk 05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse - Per private evidence I emailed arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/3/3)

Accept Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: (Q1) For a cursory glance at the logs, this editor does not appear to use the tools much. What does he need them for? I'd appreciate responses (with some numbers) from both sides of the debate. (Q2) As a further thought, do the parties think this could be resolved with a 1RR restriction? I'm particularly interested in hearing from A Man in Black on this. Roger Davies ^talk 07:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could someone explain why Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ is in namespace "Wikipedia talk" (5) instead of "Wikipedia" (4)? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
recused - non-impartial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Blocks should give an user ample notice that their conduct is problematic, especially if the user is a long time contributor and an administrator. This situation needs to be addressed in a way that gives a clearly decisive finding and remedy. The best outcome will be from an ArbCom case. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Private information received by ArbCom by email. AMIB has been notified and is aware of the concerns. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per FloNight. Wizardman 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: without turning this into an evidence page, are there any instances of tool usage that are of concern apart from the Ikip block? --bainer (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting answers to the questions posed by my colleagues. I would also welcome a more detailed statement from A Man In Black. In that regard, unless there is a serious objection, I am prepared to unblock him for the limited purpose of allowing him to edit this page (and the case pages, if the request is accepted). Disclosure: I have an entry in A Man In Black's block log; it is two years old, and I will not be recusing based upon it, but thought I should mention it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse - I had commented on the most recent block of A Man in Black prior to this request being initiated. Risker (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse - extended involvement in the ANI thread concerning AMIB and Jtrainor. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. While I don't necessarily accept the theory that a long history of blocks of an admin makes a prima facie argument for accepting a case, the evidence submitted by Ikip certainly does. Per Flonight the prolonged history here is troubling. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; I also tend to agree that an RfCU is unlikely to be productive given the volatility of the incipient dispute that led to those incidents and the (regrettable) party lines that have been drawn. — Coren ^(talk) 01:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

Initiated by Brendan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Brendan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mike Doughney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mattnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anarchangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Soxwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Firestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Writegeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GreekParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ironholds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
i am sure there are many more, but i just cant list everyone

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[53] [54], [55]. [56],
and most in depth and most recent, this RfC on him...
this sums up my experience and my attempts to get help...[57]

Statement by brendan19

1st, my apologies if the format/style/etc is incorrect here in any way. never done one of these before. many editors have had many similar problems with User:collect- namely edit warring [58] [59] [60] [61], improper use of policies to suit his needs at the time, gaming the system, ididnthearthat, making proveably false claims about other editors [62]-where he accuses me of being a sock[63], pov editing to give a right wing view ([64]-shows he wants an older less appropriate source because it says what he wants it to say.), and just generally causing problems (getting articles and himself blocked from editing for a while and getting into arguments/disagreements with many editors). all of this is easily seen in the RfC [65]. what you will note is that the RfC was completely unsuccessful because collect refused to take suggestions, examine his own behavior, take responsibility for said behavior/explain it, and instead collect systematically tried to discredit and attack every one of the editors he perceived as being against him. he then posted this [66] which seemed to suggest he was Alice being tried before a crazy group of people from wonderland. he also said he would be going on a wikibreak (so he wouldnt participate in the RfC any longer) and proceeded to continue editing every day since then (save 2) with over 500 edits since then. i feel like we tried to get him to change his behavior and got nowhere with him. he is an experienced editor and in the past has only responded to things like getting blocked (see his block log). please take a look at the RfC and see what i am saying or feel free to listen to some of the other editors. thanks Brendan19 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Statement by Vassyana

[67] appears to be a 2nd revert. [68] is possibly more than 1rr, its hard to tell because he keeps making edits like this [69] again and again which are consistently changing the same info, but im not sure it counts as a revert. this is a second revert on the same day on jtp [70]. here is another 2nd revert w/in 24 hours on another republican [71] which came after this 1st revert [72]. and i am going by the definition, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." these two are w/in a 26 hour period, but i believe that shows gaming the system and not truly trying to abide by his promise not to edit war- [73][74]. after trying to remove the section-[75] he then 2nd reverts here by only removing parts of the section-[76] and this was after this revert- [77] . the following definitely show that he violated his promise...[78] and [79], along with [80] and [81]. thats as far as i looked, i dont know if there are more. i would also like to say that i have seen collect apologize twice before this, on the 11th of december and the 3rd of march ([82] and [83]). like now, he was then apologizing because he was in trouble and seeking to get out of it. a look at the most recent RfC will show that there were no apologies until we reached the point where we are now (again he apologizes when in trouble). this makes me believe these apologies and promises to change are only brought about by actual binding restrictions on his editing. thats sad, but i think it shows that if we further ignore his behavior we will find ourselves in this situation again. if i hadnt started this request for arbitration the last words we would have heard from collect on the most recent RfC would be these [84] accusations, conspiracy theories and other mudslinging- quite a difference from what weve seen here. basically, my point is that there is a pattern of problems with collect that seem to keep slipping through the cracks because each one on its own may not be such a big deal to various admins. taken as a whole, i hope the pattern is visible here and i hope we can correct it. Brendan19 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Statement by newyorkbrad

as i have shown above, collect has in the past demonstrated that he may not always follow through with his promises. he violated his 1rr on more than one occasion. you suggest holding off on a request for arbitration to see if he will follow through this time. my problem with that is what happens when he breaks his promise days, weeks, or months down the road. to reach this stage of dispute resolution takes a long time and a lot of work on all our parts. i have been editing on wikipedia for years now and i have never pushed for something like this on a single other editor until now. i have seen too many slaps on the wrist (warnings, edit blocks, and many articles shut down for edit wars) followed with broken promises by collect. i believe if we followed your suggestion that collect would be on his best behavior until this process is finished and perhaps for some time after that. then i believe the zebra's stripes would reappear. the only way i can imagine for your suggestion to work is if we set some date in the distant future to reevaluate collect's editing- im talking about a year or so. if he can remain civil and keep from edit-warring and doing the other behaviors mentioned in the RfC for more than a year then i believe the problem will have been solved. if within that year he goes back to his old behavior then i suggest we make some way to come back here and do something about it. i know that sounds complicated and thats why i think we ought to just go through with the arbitration now. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soxwon

I was involved with an edit-war with Collect on Drudge Report. Afterwards we worked out our differences and resolved the situation. I found working with Collect that although he can be a bit frustrating, overall he is trying to improve the encyclopedia. I also feel that the RfC was flawed as it was conducted in an inappropriate manner (Collect's history was searched for possible violations, which were then used as "evidence"): [85], [86], erroneous charge made based on "evidence". They also used the Drudge Report as evidence without talking to any of the parties involved (Fascism only one person, Introman). It was only after I brought it up and started contacting other users that Ratel and The Four Deuces were brought in (I myself found out through Collect's talkpage and had I not seen it, they may have never even talked to anyone involved w/Drudge). This behavior might explain Collect's Alice response. Soxwon (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

Collect has edited a number of articles on political subjects. He has strong opinions and at times he has butted heads with other users that also have strong opinions. Certainly edit warring is not the way to solve problems, but IMHO there's nothing here that's so unusual that it needs arbitration. If future conflicts appear uninvolved admins have the tools to deal with one or both sides of the conflict. No need to replay that sub-optimal RFC/U on the workshop pages here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NYB

I didn't believe an arbitration case was needed in the first place, but that belief is only strengthened by Collects statement. I believe all that a case would accomplish is sound and fury about past content disputes that are best left in the past. (See RFC). What would be the goal of arbitration that hasn't already been accomplished by Collect promising to use non-warring ways to deal with future content disputes?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Statement by GreekParadise

If the arbitrators are wondering why the RFC was less then productive I believe you'll find the full version if GreekParadise's statement informative[87]. This sort of invective was commonplace as opposed to the RFC being a rational discussion of how to solve the situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ironholds

I don't consider myself an involved party, and I would advise the clerks/an uninvolved editor to trim the list of involved parties. I've not been involved in any of the articles Collect has been accused of edit-warring in, my only involvement was to comment on the RfC, which I don't think really makes me a party to the dispute itself. Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferrylodge

My experience has been that Collect is a skilled and reasonable editor. I haven't seen any behavior on his part that would rise to the level of an ArbCom matter.

The present Arbitration Request seems premature, and the present Arbitration Request does not cite any edits by Collect that followed the RfC.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dicklyon

As a party to the edit war with Collect at William Timmons I have to share some of the blame, but my impression is that Collect is one of the few very worst editors that I've had to deal with on wikipedia, in terms of persistent POV pushing contrary to all sources, reason, and other editors' advice and opinions. Fortunately, he went away from that one. Anything that can be done to moderate his behaviors would be worthwhile. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phoenix_of9

I had never interacted with most of the people in RFC but I saw that what many people experienced with Collect were same or similar to what I experienced. Edit warring, gaming the system, disruptive editing and Ididnthearthat. The way Collect responded to RfC was also typical. Instead of acknowledging anything, he engaged in wikilawyering and tried to have the RfC invalidated with lots of misinformation. [88]

I also do think Collect may be using the attrition technique. Discussing something at great lengths and eventually trying to wear down the opponents patience. This is something that is very hard to back up with diffs so I'm sorry if that wasnt Collect's intention but that was my impression and thats what happened to User:Mike Doughney who has retired. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassyana

Answering Vassyana's question:

After getting blocked, Collect promised on March 3 to not edit Drudge Report for a week or more as well as 1RR or less for at least a month. [89] But he was back to editing it just three days later: [90][91][92]. So as far as I know, he didnt break 1rr but he did break the other voluntary condition. Phoenix of9 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

My observations concerning the edit-warring at William Timmons: Collect was sorely tried by Dicklyon, who seemed to be editing with an agenda, persistently re-adding negative material with only a very tenuous link to the BLP subject. Collect seemed to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Jayen466 10:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Yes. I edit warred. I now try to reach compromises whereever possible (vide ongoing mediation re: Rick Warren), using noticeboards, and earnestly seeking not to editwar. I was wrong. Collect (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(way too much info removed)

At this point, I am taking guidance, and will continue to take guidance, substantially from Gwen Gale, whom I trust is an acceptable administrator for me to approach with questions. I earnestly seek to avoid anything approaching an edit war, and shall continue to do so. Collect (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also sent apologies to each person posting here with concerns about my past edit warring, in the hope that they will accept it as heartfelt. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the matter of news, I am in the middle of a record flood (over 25" locally of rain) and may well lose power for up to a week shortly (they can not restore it on my street until all flood waters recede), Thanks! Collect (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note Ratel has just come off a block for edit warring for which I think he blames me. Interesting timing. Collect (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the Four Deuces

I support this arbitration. In the mediation, I gave examples of where Collect had been argumentative or deceptive, and he provided no response to my comments. Furthermore, I found it disturbing that his response to the mediation was to go on a "wiki-break", and post mocking comments on his talk page. Since the mediation died down he has resumed bad faith behavior and even reported one of the parties to the mediation for edit-warring, even though he was not involved in editing the page himself. I notice that some editors support Collect but they should ask themselves why Collect left them to argue his case for him in the mediation.

Response to arbitrators

In my view, nothing has changed since the mediation. I am currently in dispute with Collect on the Fascism article (since May 16). I see a continuing pattern. I complained that a lead sentence was ambiguous and not supported by the references. He ignores what I have stated, claims we have reached a compromise and then comes up with masses of references he obviously has not read, and does not back up the sentence. He did set up an RfC but threatened an editor who joined it with edit-warring (User_talk:Lapsed_Pacifist#Editwar warning).

Here is the discussion:

Talk:Fascism#Political spectrum

Talk:Fascism#How many cites do you want?

Talk:Fascism#Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

Talk:Fascism#First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

Statement by GreekParadise

I support this arbitration. The RFC gives all the detail anyone would ever need to read on Collect's general manner of editing. I've seen everything Brendan mentions. Collect is one of the main reasons I rarely edit on wikipedia anymore. In fact, Collect has convinced me that it is a waste of my time to try to edit an article in wikipedia against a persistent editwarrer who is determined to skew an article. It is simply easier to allow a wikipedia article to be completely skewed, false, and inaccurate than to attempt to post a verified fact when Collect doesn't want that fact in an article. Because in my experienced the determined falsifier and wikilawyer (Collect) seems to always prevail over consensus and truth. If Collect doesn't get his way in the daylight, he sneaks his edits weeks or months later without mention on the talk page and then fights with you for thousands of hours when you try to restore the prior consensus. He always wins. Even when he's provably certifiably wrong. And if Collect remains unpunished and unreformed, I and many other editors will just give up on wikipedia. (I kind of already have.)GreekParadise (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SB_Johnny

I'm not named as a party, but I have been in touch with Collect via email in the hopes of encouraging/supporting him in efforts to "stay out of trouble". My hopes for a mellow outcome clearly did not come to pass :-). I think an investigation and decision from ArbCom would provide both legitimization and closure for a good number of involved parties (including Collect), so I urge the committee to take up the case. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buster7

I support this arbitration. The recent RfC displayed Collect's persistent, widespread and ongoing history of editing problems with other editors. Now...had Collect acted in Good Faith in response to an outpouring of examples of his miss-steps, the RfC may have accomplished something. That was its intent...to move beyond all the fussing and fighting. Progress and moving beyond contention could have been the positive result. But, sadly, Collect missed the opportunity. Even now, his timid and meek statement barely scratches the surface. The community has been unable to resolve the disruptive and time-consumming actions of this editor. Arbitration is the next step available. --Buster7 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to Administrator brainer

I hope you will give the RfC a look. The issue to be considered is that the actions of Collect are creating an environment where good faith editors are confronting retirement from WP rather than deal with Collect.

Collect recently apologized, on my talk page, for an edit war we never had. I would suggest that Collect consider the following clear statement of intent. If this Request for Arbitration is not granted, at least the community will have Collect's word that he will change.

"I plan on addressing the concerns raised at the recent RfC and work to improve in the next several months"--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firestorm

My original involvement in this issue was as the MedCab mediator for the Rick Warren article. I eventually passed that one up to Medcom, where after a rough start significant progress is being made. I object to the inclusion of that RfM as a failed attempt at dispute resolution, as does Sunray, the current mediator. As for the RfC/U, I feel that it was a pointless dramafest. If I had my contributions examined for any possible hint of wrongdoing and had all of it shoved down my throat with a great heap of incivility, I would be pretty upset, too.

Regarding Collect's behaviour, I acknowledge that he is *very* rough around the edges, and often pushes himself too aggressively. Throughout our mediation I have consistently disagreed with his opinions. He also has (had?) several misunderstandings about the proper applications of policies and guidelines, specifically BLP, UNDUE and COAT. However, I feel that he has the wiki's best interests at heart, and is in need of guidance more than arbitration. I urge the Arbitrators to reject this case, so we can all go home and move on to more productive aspects of the wiki than this senseless drama mongering. Firestorm ^Talk 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Writegeist

Support. In my experience Collect is a disruptive POV-pushing editor who habitually sucks other editors into edit-wars. He has blended tactics (bullying, deception, vindictiveness; falsification and misrepresentation of WP policies and also of other editors’ posts and positions; assumptions of bad faith; wikilawyering, gaming the system, railroading, Ididn’thearthat; false and therefore unsupported accusations of meat- and sockpuppetry; refusal to apologise or compromise; disregard for consensus; filibustering; wheedling attempts to influence admins etc.) and tone (sneering, disdainful – vide his response to his RfC/U; uncollegial; arrogant, superior, peevish, unreasonable – i.e. an all-round fuck-you attitude, apparently rooted in an unshakable faith in his own impunity, towards anyone who resists his POV-pushing etc.) to concoct the most consistently nasty editing experience I have had on WP. Posts here and at his RfC/U from other editors who have opposed his autocratic POV-pushing show that I am far from alone in this view. I believe one editor (perhaps someone will correct me if I’m wrong) has already been run off WP by Collect’s behaviour. I now avoid articles Collect is involved in. I believe others do too. This is not good for the project.

In light of Collect’s dismissive response to his RfC – pretending to be on “Wikibreak” while actually continuing to contribute to pages other than the RfC – today’s sudden rash of formulaic apologies[93][94][95]20 [96], posted to his exasperated critics' talk pages, for “any editwars” he “may” have had with them, and his promise to “endeavour to continue avoiding them”, looks hollow. And I think it's important to note that this “apology” refers not to his actions but to hypothetical events (“editwars I may have had with you”), as if he innocently found himself entangled in events of someone else’s making. Just like his pseudo-apology to me for his repeated, totally groundless and unsupported personal attacks [97] (“I have earnestly sought to make no personal attacks on you, and apologize if you feel that the statements are personal attacks” – my emphasis), which continued during his RfC/U, his current mass-circulation “apology” studiously avoids apologizing for his actions. These weaselly-worded “apologies” – yet more examples of Collect’s use of deviousness and deception to [WP:GAME] the system – are expedients which demonstrate that, even in the face of all the evidence here and at the RfC, Collect still does not concede that he is at fault. Characteristically regarding us all as fools, he seems to think we’re easily duped. I trust the outcome here will prove to him that that’s a foolish assumption. Writegeist (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in support of statement

I Support Editor:Writegeist's statement. Attempts to make light of Collects actions and to fail to proceed with this RfA would give Collect a stamp of approval. He will most assuredly use the failure to convene as not just proof of his innocence but proof of all of his ludicrous claims of ganging up and cabal creating and sockpuppetry. He will never acknowledge any wrongdoing unless confronted by impartial Administrators. Gwen Gale is not impartial.--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ratel

I heartily endorse the view of Writegeist above. He very accurately describes Collect's modus operandi. I'm one of Collect's favorite targets. The extra wrinkle I can add to Collect's repertoire is stalking, as in following me to many pages I edit and starting the familiar pattern of obstructive editing in opposition to any data I am busy debating on the Talk page. Since his shocking RfC, he's become wily, like a fox, preferring to admin-shop and noticeboard-shop rather than to edit directly. He is a past-master at expanding content disputes (which he helps foment), as quickly as possible, to noticeboards, all the while protesting loudly how he himself has "only done one edit" to the article (IOW he styles himself as an innocent bystander, a Good Samaritan just trying to keep the peace). His basic strategy is to find an opposing editor he wants to target for his "game" — because make no mistake, he doesn't give a tinker's cuss about content — then gradually escalate confrontation on as many points as possible with his selected enemy, keeping off the article page but interjecting numerous inflammatory comments at key junctures on the associated Talk page, preventing consensus emerging (usually right when people are starting to agree on something), then finding a like-minded admin he can butter-up and schmooze (Collect, in brown-nose mode, can be a really revoltingly obsequious lickspittle), and once the admin has been fellated to the point of probable compliance, the coup-de-grace is delivered: he begins begging the admin for action against his current opponent by constantly whining about reverts or other transgressions (he's a weasely wikilawyer), often giving ordinary edits as examples of reverts in his eagerness (and knowing many admins are too busy or lazy to check it all out carefully). He "wins" when the enemy gets blocked. Score 1 to Collect. Go back and start game again. And so on, ad infinitum.

If wikipedia does not find an effective way to bring stalking, game-playing, content-oblivious editors like Collect to heel, I for one shall eventually abandon all non-scientific pages I edit (I'll dismember him on any medical page, so he leaves me alone there). I note that others feel the same way, and I join them in saying that Collect is the single worst editor I have come across on wikipedia in almost 4 years. In fact, I believe he has an anxiety spectrum disorder, in the OCD range, that underlies his constant edit warring, so wikipedia is really just a place for him to act out, a form of therapy. So shame on the editors above who endorsed Collect because he's rightwing like you are, even when you know he's bad for wikipedia, and shame on the admins below who are playing the "hear no evil, see no evil" card. Shame on you. Something MUST be done about deranged editors like Collect, for the good of the project, or eventually the project will be swamped with every obsessive, obstructive, quarrelsome, querulous, no-life nutcase living in his parents' basement. ► RATEL ◄ 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Teledildonix314

This arbitration needs to remedy Collect's consistent patterns of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, POV-pushing particularly via strawman arguments, appearance of egotistical presumption of infallibility, and baseless attacks on his critics rather than any heed of their concerted criticisms. However, all my interaction with Collect has amounted in a single prolonged Mediation Case; and that's privileged. I hope Arbitration will produce an amenable solution; but i must effectively excuse myself from this situation because i'm not supposed to bring up diffs from privileged Mediation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~₄₁₁~ 07:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/4/0/1)

Accept. The RfC's been open a month without edits for two weeks, so if there's still an issue then Arbcom does need to look into the conduct of all involved parties. Wizardman 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per his statement above, Collect has indicated that he recognizes there is a problem and states that he has changed his method of editing. Granted that this is very much a last-minute acknowledgement on the eve of arbitration, I wonder if we should defer this request for a bit to see whether Collect's editing does in fact substantially improve, before opening an arbitration case. I'd welcome input on this suggestion from the parties and others commenting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Looking through the comments, it's my view that ArbCom involvement is needed to sort out the situation since there is not a clear consensus about the nature of the problem. ArBCom case will let all involved offer evidence of their view of the problem. From there we can decide on the needed remedies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Roger Davies ^talk 04:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - scenario suggests independent investigation rather than (or hopefully as well as) mediation will be next step. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I am not convinced that this is beyond the ability of the community to resolve, that all avenues of resolving conduct concerns have been exhausted, nor that any disruption taking place is such a pressing concern that the former two points need to be waived. Additionally, arbitration is a very blunt instrument and I believe this situation would be better served by a more personalized and nuanced approach. Also, Newyorkbrad's point is also persuasive to me. On a related note, can anyone provide information about whether or not Collect abided by his voluntary one-month submission to a 1RR restriction through the month of March? I am open to the possibility that arbitration may be necessary and appropriate, but I do not see at the moment. --Vassyana (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Collect, could you expand your statement a bit. It would be nice to know what steps you will take to avoid this happening again if this requested case is declined. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline at this time, per bainer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, unless some preliminary evidence can be demonstrated of continuing problematic editing following the request for comment (preliminary in the sense that all that is necessary is to demonstrate that there is a real issue to be considered). In the event that the request is accepted, the scope ought to extend to include all the parties listed here or at the request for comment who have been involved in these editing disputes. --bainer (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; I think this is at the edge of needing arbitration, but that there is still reasonable hope that this will resolve satisfactorily without our intervention. — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individualist anarchism

Initiated by Eduen--Eduen (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Eduen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Nihilo 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vision Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zazaban (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

Talk page discussion and calls to come to an agreement by request filing party.

Statement by Eduen

The article of dispute used to be disputed as having a USA centric view. I along with user Zazaban proceded to try to correct this and so started to enlarge the section that deals with european individualist anarchism. After this in order for the article to be coherent with the new information, it needed to be corrected in the introduction and the overview as well as the external links. Even though we came to acceptances of changes by some users, user Nihilo 01 who happens to have a previous history of edit wars and some blockings from editing, never wanted an agreement and only proceded to enter into an edit war. My proposal can be seen in the Talk page of the article as to how the article could be neutral. I decided to come here since also the user Vision Thing has decided to get into this edit war and only makes big reversions without participating in the talk page.--Eduen (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seddon

I would like to echo what Sam Blacketer has said. This dispute is civil, and has not got to the stage in which Arbitration/Formal Mediation is required. I recommend that you seek a request for comment or informal mediation with The Mediation Cabal^TM before seeking the aforementioned processes. Third opinion is typically for dual party disputes rather than multi party disputes. I would like to encourage all parties to continue in the civil manner with which this dispute has occurred. Rarely do things progress when tempers soar and insults fly. Seddσn ^talk 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AGK

Although I would be of the same opinion as Sam and as Seddon, and concur that this dispute is not appropriate to arbitration at the present, a review of the recent history of this article nonetheless concerns me. The basis for my concerns are two-fold. (1) The throughput of edits on the article is alarmingly high, and the majority of the edits are abrupt changes of direction; generally, the article will run for six or seven edits with one version, before a party on the "other side" of the dispute edits the article and turns it head-over-heels. Changes to a Wikipedia article are immediately visible to our readers, and so a modicum of stability should be injected into this article quite quickly. (2) The dispute has been ongoing since 7 April 2009. To my mind, that is indicative of weaknesses in the approach the parties to this dispute are taking.

Whilst arbitration of this dispute is not an option, administrator intervention may well be. Having reviewed (admittedly, not in-depth) the dispute, this seems to be a content dispute with overlying editor conduct issues; respectively, those issues would probably be best dealt with through direction to the standard dispute resolution forums—such as third opinion, request for comment, or informal mediation (as suggested by Seddon and by Sam)—and by appropriate tackling of the user conduct issues—cautioning the parties and educating them on appropriate techniques for collaboratively editing, with suggestions of blocking if conduct further deteriorates.

Précis: this is prematurely coming to arbitration, but the dispute has been affecting this article for some time now. The neutralising of the parties' conduct problems (by an administrator), and directing this to appropriate dispute resolution forums, would be a reasonable strategy going forward.

AGK 16:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/12/0/0)

Comment. In advance of hearing from other editors, I would say that this looks like it is primarily a content dispute involving no very serious behavioural problems. True, there is an entrenched dispute and it seems that two different versions of the article are growing up which are being reverted between each other. There does not seem to have been any other attempts at dispute resolution, other than an ongoing and civil (although somewhat tense) debate on the talk page. I would encourage involvement of other editors through a request for comment on the page; you might also seek a third opinion. If that fails to resolve anything or help you come to a compromise, then seeking mediation may help. Arbitration is the last method of dispute resolution and this dispute looks to be coming to us prematurely; I am minded to decline. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Premature for arbitration. Seek other methods of dispute resolution and assistance from uninvolved admins and experienced editors. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per both preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, this is the kind of dispute that mediation was made for. Wizardman 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per above. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - suggest following Sam's advice. Carcharoth (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above, esp per WizMan. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per suggestions above. Please bear in mind that we insist on strict compliance with all rules and governance procedures on the anarchism articles. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Roger Davies ^talk 04:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. --Vassyana (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per suggestions above. Risker (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 234: / Line 234: @@
 ==== Comment by uninvolved TML ====
 Having observed many of Giano's previous "departures," I can no longer take his "departure" announcements at face value. As such, I would definitely not be surprised if he returns to regular editing sooner or later, as that has always been the case in the past. [[User:TML|TML]] ([[User talk:TML|talk]]) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
+==== Comment by Jennavecia ====
+I was the admin pointing out the double standard of Scarian getting a one hour block for notation in his block log and Giano getting ''three weeks''. This whole situation is a big ball of fail. I don't even know where to begin. I'll just be brief. The project is to build an encyclopedia. Being as anyone can edit, we have users of all different everythings. This includes some brats, some stupid people, some grumpy old men, etc. (Aimed at no one in particular). The thing is, you can't expect all these people to get along all of the time. Some of them ever. It's human nature, and there's nowhere on this project to argue freely. So, of course, people will snap. Giano's gotten a raw deal with too many bad blocks, to the point that the legit blocks become an issue. A key thing to remember is our purpose. We're here to build an encyclopedia. The most important aspect in that is content creation and improvement. Few people produce higher quality content than Giano. He snaps off on people... big deal. If the drama-mongerers were spending less time drama-mongering and more time improving content, there wouldn't be an issue.
+How about this, ArbCom: Accept the case, assume Giano will return, as he (thankfully) always does, and put forth something that says Giano isn't to be blocked without consensus among admins following a block request by ''the person he flipped out on''. In a case such as this, where Xeno baited Giano, Giano flipped out and upset Prodego's delicate sensibilities, we should not see a block. Much less a block for three damn weeks. How is that preventative? Really? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of allowing punitive blocks, but come on. Three weeks for one of our most prolific content creators because he allowed himself to be trolled?
+People need to take a step back, look at the big picture, and refocus. The project doesn't need civility police. Three words: Get over it. It's not all rainbows and butterflies in the real world, and Wikipedia shouldn't be expected to be any different. [[User:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''ل'''enna</span>]][[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF">vecia</span>]] 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 ==== Comment by Prodego ====