Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Rootology

Note: my various numbers on edit counts are from the baseline at User:Rootology/evidence/AMiB notes, where I detail how I got them.

A Man In Black has been blocked 12 times since he was an administrator

• Block record

He has an extensive and long-term history of edit warring and blocks edit warring since his 2005 successful RFA, which is unbecoming of an administrator. Reviewing his block log, 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.

A Man In Black is deeply involved with Ikip

As of May 23, 2009, Ikip is one of the major contributors to various ARS pages, as is AMiB. There is no reasonable way it is even possible to ever assume that A Man In Black and Ikip are ever uninvolved towards each other, as far as any Administrative actions are concerned. Not even the most liberal rationale could reach that conclusion. The below is pulled directly from a dump of both contributor's total edit contributions with a flag of "25000" edits, so it's everything. This doesn't get into the hundreds (?) of various AFDs out there, which I'm not going to dig that far and deeply into. They cross and intersect constantly on those.

ARS statistics

Ikip's edit counts to various ARS pages:

• 382 Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron
• 67 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_(4th_nomination)
• 40 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Hall_of_Fame
• 18 Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/How_to
• 12 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/How_to
• 10 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/FAQ
• 9 Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Hall_of_Fame
• 8 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members
• 8 Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_invite
• 3 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Hall_of_Fame/New
• 3 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Current_articles
• 3 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron
• 1 Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_34
• 1 Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_32
• 1 Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_30
• 1 Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_29

Total edits: 567

AMiB's edit counts to various ARS pages:

• 263 Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron
• 40 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_(4th_nomination)
• 20 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/FAQ
• 9 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron
• 1 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_(3rd_nomination)
• 1 Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members

Total edits: 334

AMiB and Ikip's intersections

• AMiB and Ikip per this study have intersected on a total of 199 edited pages as of May 23. As AMiB has edited 992 distinct pages as of that same date, that represents AMiB overlapping with Ikip on a total of 20% of all the distinct pages he has edited.

Other direct interactions

Additionally, AMiB has edits to these pages for discussion:

• 26 User_talk:Ikip
• 4 User:Ikip/AfD

Ikip also has as of May 23 a matching 26 edits to User talk:A Man In Black.

A Man In Black made an attack page about Ikip

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

A Man In Black is deeply involved with the ARS & Notability debates

Overall involvement

Per Soxred's tools,[1] AMiB's top 3 project talk areas as of May 23, 2009:

• 417 - WikiProject_Video_games
• 263 - Article_Rescue_Squadron
• 176 - Notability_(fiction)

AMiB's involvement in other Notability related discussions

• 116 Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)
• 19 Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:compromise
• 14 Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)
• 3 Wikipedia_talk:Notability

Overall ARS involvement by AMiB

Full detailed in this section, directly above.

ARS FAQ

As of May 23, AMiB has 20 of 56 edits to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ, 35.7% of the total.

ARS MFD

AMiB put the ARS up for MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination).

AMiB's focus on Wikipedia is deletion, and related areas

As of May 23, AMiB has edited 992 non-deleted pages. 234 of them are various Articles for Deletion pages and ARS-related pages, or 23.6% of the total.

A Man In Black has used his admin tools inappropriately on Ikip

As detailed here, AMiB blocked Ikip for alleged canvassing about the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Template:AfD/Tagged, made again by Ikip, was deleted not once but twice in two days by AMiB, claiming WP:POINT. Based on all of this evidence, A Man In Black by no stretch of any policy interpretation nor imagination can be ever considered "uninvolved" in regards to Ikip, anything to do with the ARS, nor anything to do with Notability the policy.

A Man In Black grossly misrepresented his involved status

In spite of all this deep, ongoing involvement in the ARS, Ikip, and the metawars of Inclusionism vs. Deletionism, AMiB claimed and vigorously argued that he was uninvolved when he blocked Ikip from editing.

A Man In Black has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry

Per private evidence to the Arbitration Committee[2], A Man In Black has:

1. Abusively edited Wikipedia with more than one identity.[3]
2. Has misused the IP-block exemption function that all Administrators share.[4]

More specific information is not mine to give. Please check with the Arbs.

Replies

Outright rejection of AMIB's take on the sockpuppetry

In regards to AMIB's false claim that my logic in presenting his sockpuppet evidence is "circular", absolutely, utterly, 100% not true. You chose to edit and sock as your personal IP address then bypass the block on that as your Admin handle--you don't get to hide behind that for your "privacy" now. "Privacy" is never a veil to allow obfuscation of misbehavior, disruption, or policy violations. I (and anyone with any ounce of common sense) will reject out of hand your to be impolite "CYA" deflection there now. Yes, it's sourced back upon itself.

Would you care to disclose the IP address(es) so I can source this properly? Otherwise, you will have to live with the consequences of your actions as the Arbcom privately determines them. rootology/equality 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejection of AMiB's claim that he was never talked to about edit warring

This defense makes little to no sense. An Administrator shouldn't require a "talking to" about their edit warring that leads to 12 blocks after their successful RFA. Administrators are not children. The first 11 blocks for edit warring weren't enough of a clue that it's unacceptable? Has AMiB ever blocked an editor for edit warring, himself? rootology/equality 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejection of AMiB's claims in regards to Ikip/ARS uninvolved status

It is impossible to deny that AMiB meets every last single reasonable definition of "involved" status in regards to User:Ikip. When AMiB blocked Ikip, the overwhelming consensus was that AMiB met every criterion of "involved" status. Whether he was involved on March 1, April 1, or April 20 is meaningless; involved is involved, as I detailed here, here, and finally here. AMiB's involvement in the ARS is involvement as an editor and partisan, precluding him from use of admin tools in that arena. That alone would meet the qualifications for involvement with Ikip, as the ARS is one of the major areas of work by Ikip (see that evidence I posted above). Adding in all the other discussions and tussles between the users, and a blind man can see the involvement as clear as the noon sun. rootology/equality 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MBisanz

Private evidence

I emailed some private evidence to arbcom. They can post the email I sent here if they see fit or give me permission to post the private information. Their call. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Uncle G

On mailing to the moon

There's a timeline, and a discussion context, here that isn't being presented. So here it is:

2009-01-31T21:25

A Man In Black makes a user-space sub-page. It's sole content is "Note to self: buy stamps.". Only this one edit is ever made to the page.

2009-01-31T21:26

A Man In Black makes these two edits pointing to xyr user-space sub-page, explaining the point that xe was making by saying "I can make [the page] but it doesn't much affect anything, no matter how many stamps I buy.".

2009-01-31T22:09

A Man In Black deletes the user-space sub-page, with the summary "Nah, not as funny as I'd like". From this point on, this page only exists as a redlink.

2009-02-02T16:07

Ikip responds in these two edits. Observe in passing that A Man In Black did not call Ikip "delusional and dense".

2009-02-02T16:54

Ikip modifes xyr previous response.

2009-02-02T17:13

A Man In Black responds, explaining xyr point in another way by saying "Things people say in userspace pages don't necessarily have anything to do with reality".

2009-04-27T02:04

A Nobody brings up the redlink, without piping, in a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in this edit.

2009-04-27T02:07

A Man In Black responds, explaining again that it was "a joke about the silliness of citing clearly ridiculous proposals and essays" and observing, tounge-in-cheek, that "Clearly, 'Note to self: Buy more stamps' was part of my plan to silence opposition.".

2009-04-29T01:11

A Man In Black adds to the previous reply, pointing out with emphasis that xe is of the understanding that xe and Ikip were actually in agreement, in the discussion containing the earlier edits.

2009-05-19T20:22

Pablomismo creates User:Pablomismo/Let's give A Man In Black a wedgie and put him in a sack and tow it through a cow pasture!

2009-05-19T21:02

Pablomismo adds the same redlink to User:Pablomismo/Let's give A Man In Black a wedgie and put him in a sack and tow it through a cow pasture!

2009-05-20T10:46

Jack Merridew links to Pablomismo's sub-page in a talk page edit to User talk:Jayvdb, using piping so that the linked text is ";)".

2009-05-20T18:25

Ikip creates User:Ikip/block, containing the same redlink.

Note that User:Pablomismo/Let's give A Man In Black a wedgie and put him in a sack and tow it through a cow pasture! is still bluelinked, and contains 19 edits by Pablomismo and 3 by Jack Merridew.

A Man In Black makes a statement about perceived involvement and not re-blocking Ikip

Here it is:

2009-04-28T02:41

A Man In Black writes

I don't feel that I was involved in some larger meta-dispute with Ikip (I cannot see any personal gain I make by blocking him, and nobody was able to show one to me), but I brought it here in the interest of having greater input on my actions (which turned out to have been in error, due to changes in guidelines). As for recusal, where do I sign up for the "I know better than to wheel war guys, seriously" certification? I wouldn't reblock Ikip (or anyone, for that matter) without clear evidence of a compromised admin account or something.

Evidence presented by MythSearcher^talk

AMIB single man WP:POINT campaign on the Gundam (mobile suit) article

AMIB is usually useful when he is not acting as an admin. Admins are supposed to be role models of others, not counter examples. In this unreported edit war, AMIB shows no role model action, but only purely disruptive point campaign just because he was reverted by others. Notice he asked for a source to support the source in the lower part of this edit, and the single man campaign against page consensus with 3 different users. He claims he tries to move on to more important things after 3RRs most of the time, in this situation, he moves to disrupt the article after 3 reverts(4th edit), not something an admin should do.

AMIB WP:POINT campaign and no consensus notability and unreasonable request of sources on the Real Robot article

In the article Real Robot. His first edit might be reasonable, since the page totally lacks of sources, he then starts on his strange sense of notability, instead of discussion, he determined that the article must not be notable. While he did show some respect on this edit, it is only a plan to introduce his strange sense of magazines not being third party sources. On This edit, he redirects a page with magazine sources and many other sources just to keep his WP:POINT on redirecting the page, nothing in the page resembles his edit comment, there are multiple sources that are outside of the Sunrise and SRW series. His disruptiveness continues in the next edit, while the article has been critically revamped, he maintains his position without even trying to read the sources. This is a well 4RR with only tagging the article in the middle instead of reverting it to avoid being reported.

MythSearcher^talk 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AMIB

This is a laundry list of complaints over separate disputes of varying degree and acrimony, none of which have been taken through any other dispute resolution venue. I waited my block out patiently to see if it would cohere, and it did not. There is no emergency, there is no wheel war, there is no referral from Jimbo. This has jumped from talk pages all the way down the ladder to RFAr, skipping all the rungs in between.

I'm not much of a fan of lawyering for lawyering's sake, but there's little need to ignore the rules. I'd previously expressed interest in the results of such dispute resolution even if it was censuring me here, the edit war I had been blocked for was a dispute I had already conceded here and here, and Ikip has gone and blocked himself for two and a half months. There's no exceptional emergency Arbcom must deal with now, and no evidence that I am uninterested in RFC or other dispute resolution where it pertains to analyzing and censuring my conduct. I'd be criticized, I'd respond, people would talk about it, and either I'd have the material to make my own changes in conduct or some new course of action would be suggested.

The premature nature of this case has meant that it isn't very tightly focused, because there's been no preliminary discussion to filter and refine it. As a result, my responses will necessarily be equally scattered, as I can't defend my pattern of conduct when no pattern has been established.

Also, for the record, I'm male. It's fine to refer to me with male pronouns, heh.

Edit warring

Given a lack of input on edit warring that didn't come at the point of a block, I've taken steps to moderate my own conduct. In particular, I've been doing my best to spot when I've gotten involved in these internecine fights over trivialities, and self-revert and reconsider a better plan of action, based on the assumption that my version will not and should not prevail by this means. In both of the blocks in the last six months, I had already done this, reverting to the "wrong" version and taking a different tack, or simply conceding the point entirely until I could form a better argument. Rootology even offers the evidence of this, above, buried in his diffs; well before I was blocked, I self-reverted here and reconsidered the cause of the problem rather than fighting over a symptom, and suggested that the project that had the attitude I was attempting to prevent from being enshrined in the FAQ needed to be dismantled and replaced with something else, which I proposed here.

Perhaps this is an appropriate solution to prevent further edit warring. Maybe it's not proactive enough or obvious enough. I don't know. What I do know is that I was never offered any chance to explain or defend or amend this before the RFAr, because nobody asked.

Ikip

Where's the evidence that I was significantly involved in a dispute with Ikip any time proximate to April 26? My involvement with him to that point (save for some months-old and since-resolved policy and deletion discussions, where we occasionally agreed and occasionally disagreed) was on WT:ARS, criticizing the canvassing conduct of Ikip and others, WT:CANVASS, criticizing the same, and WP:ANI, again criticizing the same conduct. The block was out of line of the rules of the time, which is again my fault for not keeping up with them. Obviously I'm involved in larger disputes with Ikip now (to my regret), but there is an intervening month in which I have become involved in those disputes.

As for {{AfD/Tagged}}, I had reasonable reason to believe it was made to make a disruptive point in an argument, based on this comment (and this later comment confirmed it). Ikip left it lay deleted, but then recreated it for a stated alternate, good faith reason which I cannot now recall. I thought he was recreating it for the same reason above, he corrected me on my talk (or I saw it on his talk), and I quickly undeleted it. I'd like to highlight that this was created for the express purpose of canvassing (as one of an implied set of "automated tools to bring other partisans to AFDs"), and that, to date, it hasn't actually been used for anything.

The entirety of my "dispute" with Ikip up to April was my criticism of his canvassing conduct. If administrators are involved in a dispute with a user for criticizing and attempting to contain disruption with tools other than their administrative tools, to a degree that this jeopardizes their ability to use those administrative tools to resolve the situation if other means fail, then this seems to imply a "Block first, questions later" mandate for admins, lest they become involved in "disputes" that prevent enforced action due to their involvement in voluntary discussion of conduct. In fact, Ikip has made a personal practice of abusing this confusion of criticism of conduct with content/policy disputes; he has a page threatening any administrator who attempts to circumscribe his conduct or censure him, and up until February had a page with detailed instructions for gaming a number of different disputes, including particularly the 3RR (note that he described himself as a three-year veteran of edit wars in his disclaimer).

There's a potpourri of other complaints in here, most of which assert the conclusion with no evidence. Uncle G addresses my "attack page" above.

Anonymous comment

I made a tetchy comment while not signed in, then made the bad decision to disown the IP instead of simply accepting it. Not my wisest idea. It was nothing more than a tetchy comment followed by some on-point criticism on the IP's talk (so not any of the typical abusive uses of a sockpuppet), and then the IP was blocked as anon-only with an admonition to stop making tetchy comments anonymously. There was no abuse of the ability to edit through blocks (admins can edit through blocks? Not entirely sure I knew that) because any auto-confirmed user could have done the same, and indeed the block summary implied that this was the blocking admin's intent. It was a rather cowardly thing to do, all told, but it was less sockpuppetry and more cowardice.

Rootology's workshop comments along these lines are circular; he cites a Workshop post as evidence, then uses his evidence post citing a workshop post to propose remedies on the workshop.

Gundam, etc.

Mythsearcher and I have been involved in some content disputes. He needs to understand that citation of a source doesn't mean vague attribution to a speaker, but specific attribution to a published claim. I need to make a better argument than the one I had at Real Robot to accomplish anything, which is why I haven't touched the page in seven months. Both of them are long-stale content disputes, in which Mythsearcher has seen his preferred version implemented.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.