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

Case Opened on 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

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)
• Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Added June 1)

Requests for comment

• None.

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:

1. Indefinitely blocked
2. Forced to take a 0RR or 1RR restriction from the community or Arbitration Committee
3. 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:

1. 09:31, March 30, 2007 A Man In Black (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "A Man In Black (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Leaving)
2. 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:

1. Review AMiB's status and standing as an administrator in light of this ongoing history, and committment to edit warring and disruption.
2. Review AMiB's actions of using admin tools in a dispute (the block of Ikip).
3. Should AMiB retain his tools, face a permanent restriction of their use in regards to Ikip.
4. 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).
5. 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)

Quick answers

1. John: That is common for placement of Article FAQs, location-wise, that I've seen. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)

Request by Rootology, AMiB unblock & Information request

1. Since we're at 11 accepts and the case will be opening, can we get him unblocked with the condition that until the 9 days expire he limit himself to editing the RFAR pages, his own user space to draft evidence, and not use admin tools till the 9 are up? rootology/equality 15:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Will we be able to refer to the private evidence at least in general terms (the specific policy violation) when presented our own evidence and workshop proposals? rootology/equality 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (11/0/2/3)

• Accept  Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • Accept. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In regards to Rootology's questions, 1) can a clerk please talk with AMiB about an unblock so he can participate in this case, and 2) if anyone is not sure whether evidence can be publicly posted due to privacy concerns, either talk to the person whose privacy may be affected, or send it to arbcom-l and we will help with that decision - if it needs to stay private, we may advise that a public note can be made to describe it in a manner that doesnt affect privacy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• recused - non-impartial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Private information received by ArbCom by email. AMIB has been notified and is aware of the concerns. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per FloNight. Wizardman 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Accept based on information provided here and to the Committee by email. --bainer (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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) Note: Carcharoth was correct in removing my double vote; I was away for a few days and forgot that I had already recused.. Risker (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse - extended involvement in the ANI thread concerning AMIB and Jtrainor. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• Accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• Accept. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

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.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, 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.