Case Opened on 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Blu_Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Statement by Blu Aardvark

First of all, allow me to state that the original ban was quite appropriate. The abuse of sockpuppets, harrasment of editors, and vandalism of three seperate Wikimedia project clearly warranted a ban, and I do not dispute that. However, two months have passed since then, and I have either resolved or moved past the disputes which led to my outburst.

In my involvement with Wikipedia Review, I managed to develop an "us versus them" mentality, which is not conducive for an environment of collaboration. I began to see all admins as the "enemy", and collaborative work became more and more difficult. In addition, I was being assaulted with accusations that I was either a neo-Nazi, anti-semite, or Nazi-apologist, in part because of questionable statements that I made, but mostly because of my defense of Igor, and my inaction in dealing with users who posted anti-semitic rants on Wikipedia Review. For the record, I am not an anti-semite, but I do believe firmly in free speech, even if that speech is unpopular or even offensive. Having chosen to allow free expression within reasonable limits on Wikipedia Review, I was loathe to ban users unless they over-reached those limits. (Explaining in a civil, reasoned manner why a person believes that Jews run Wikipedia is one thing - it makes you a batshit insane nutcase, but it's reasonable expression. Calling for the blood of Jews is another - I do not consider that to be within "reasonable limits", and would have taken action if that was the nature of the rants.)

I announced my intentions to go on Wikibreak, but had a difficult time staying away from the project. (Wikipedia does, after all, have a tendency to be addictive). I made sparse edits from time to time, and also weighed in on Cyde's RFA. (I sincerely believe that part of his current hostility towards me stems from the fact that I was on an announced Wikibreak when I opposed his request for adminship. {Evidence: [1] [2] [3]}). I continued to edit sparsely, until the deletion of Template:User review. I weighed in on the DRV, which was really more of a lynch mob, IMO, loaded with ad hominem attacks and misconceptions or misrepresentations of the way the forum works. Some users were stating that the board was a neo-Nazi platform, and therefore the template should be kept deleted, among other accusations. My response to these was much less than civil, and after weighing in, I expanded my "wikibreak" message on my userpage to announce that some of those involved in the most egregarious ad hominem attacks were trolls. I was promply blocked for a week by Cyde, and when I opposed the block (again, in a much less-than-civil manner), my talk page was protected and the block was extended to a month.

To be blunt, this pissed me off, and I responded by creating sockpuppets to complain about the injustices on ANI - again in an unreasonable, uncivil manner - and found my complaints reverted and the accounts blocked. I left the PC for a while, and returned later in a much more civil tone, and worked out an agreement - my talk page was unprotected, and was used in a form of informal dispute resolution. However, at some point, for some reason, the discussion was removed and the talk page re-protected, with the reason - "a talk page is not a mirror for ArbCom". I went postal, and again used sockpuppets to circumvent the block and make incivil, unreasonable demands. This time, however, when my complaints were reverted and accounts banned, I went on a vandalism spree. I used two sockpuppets to perform page-blanking vandalism on Wikipedia (quickly reverted thanks to the keen eyes of your RC patrollers and bots), and also performed imitation WoW vandalism on Meta and Commons.

After this, my block was extended to indefinate, and the discussion of a community ban came up on ANI. For the next few weeks, I took "advantage" of the fact that I was banned and used sockpuppets to harrass the users whom I felt had wronged me most. SlimVirgin and Raul654 were my main targets, although I also harrased NicholasTurnbull, Kelly Martin, and possibly others (I forget). I did, at some point, feel remorse for my actions towards SlimVirgin, and submitted her a full apology via private email, after which point I no longer used sockpuppet accounts to harrass her, ceased writing inflammatory attacks at her on Wikipedia Review, and stopped making offensive account names designed to attack her. I did continue to harrass Raul for some time after that, but stopped when the threat of contacting my ISP was made. (Not the most noble of reasons, granted, but I made no more sockpuppets and launched no more attacks after this point).

I don't really feel that I have "changed", per se, because I don't feel that change was required. I was not initially an abusive contributor, but developed abusive patterns of behavior in part due to my relationship with Wikipedia Review, and in part due to ad hominem attacks against my character. However, I do feel that I can recognize such patterns and avoid such situations, and stick to quiet, non-controversial editting as I used to, on Recent Changes patrol.

I can agree to avoid editing pages or engaging in discussions that involve Wikipedia Review here on Wikipedia, and I can agree to following all policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, to that extent that can be expected of any contributor. (By this I mean that it is not always possible to follow the policies at every moment, and there are times when it is best to simply Ignore All Rules, but to the extent that is reasonable, I can agree to follow the policies established on Wikipedia, particularly those related to editor conduct). I can agree that I will not use Wikipedia Review, personally, as a soapbox to launch attacks on Wikipedia contributors.

To the accusations that Wikipedia Review is a cesspit, a place solely for attacking Wikipedia and contributors here, I must state that I disagree wholeheartably. Wikipedia Review's stated purpose is to provide an open platform for critical evaluation of Wikipedia. While, sadly, much of the content of the forum is not as constructive as it could be, there are many areas where Wikipedia Review offers constructive criticism on systematic, general, and specific flaws. (ie, critical evaluation of specific articles and reasoned (sort of) discussion re: RFA)

If the decision is to retain the ban, I leave knowing that I have at least tried to rebuild bridges with Wikipedia. Wikipedia will gain nothing and lose nothing. If the decision is to reduce or overrule the ban, Wikipedia will gain an additional set of eyes on RecentChanges patrol, and I will have the knowledge that I have done something to repair my relationship with the community here. It comes down to what is best for the project, and I trust that the Arbitration Committee can recognize that banning me will neither help nor harm the project, but allowing me the privelage to return to quiet editing will be of benefit to both my personally, and to Wikipedia as a whole. In my view, this is a pretty clear cut case.

Statement by Raul654

This case request is a limited one - the arbcom needs to answer only a single question: should user:Blu Aardvark be allowed to edit again (either as a regular, or under some sort of contigency/probation)? He was previously blocked - rightfully so - for a vandalism spree he embarked on. However, the block was permanent, and a number of people (myself included) believe that this might not be the best solution for a previously-good user. Blu's involvement with WikipediaReview complicates the matter.

There are a number of differing opinions on this issue, so I believe the arbcom would be best suited to answer it. Raul654 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

Please see my request for clarification (diff) re: the role of Linuxbeak and Raul in the "IRC-sanctioned" unblocking of Blu Aardvark. Thanks. El_C 19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by outsiders

These have all been moved to the talk page.

Preliminary decisions

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

Recuse (obviously) Raul654 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and note that the very first thing I will do once this case is accepted is to make an injunction to ensure that Blu Aardvark stays banned until the case is concluded and we decide otherwise. This back-and-forth is unnecessary community-fracturing. Dmcdevit·t 09:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Findings of Fact

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.