Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Final decision (none yet): closing case |
m Steel1943 moved page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Aitias to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias over a redirect without leaving a redirect: Undoing my recent moves to match parent page per recent developments at WT:ARB, not leaving redirects behind since the title did not exist before |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{ArbComNav}}
<big>'''Case Opened''' on 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</big>
<big>'''Case Closed''' on ~~~~~</big>▼
<div style="text-align: right;"><small><span style="background-color: White">Watchlist all case pages: <span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&action=watch '''1'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Evidence&action=watch '''2'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Workshop&action=watch '''3'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Proposed_decision&action=watch '''4''']</span></span></small></div>▼
▲<div style="text-align: right;"><small><span style="background-color: White">Watchlist all case pages: <span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&action=watch '''1'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Evidence&action=watch '''2'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Workshop&action=watch '''3'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Proposed_decision&action=watch '''4''']</span></span></small></div>
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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|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.
Line 38 ⟶ 33:
While the RFC had several minor issues in it, they gradually build up over time, and Aitias has again come to my attention. The point of the RFC closing was for him to take a break from RFR, where most of the biggest problems were. He took a total of 4 days away from the page, which was not really long enough with hindsight.
I was pointed to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=277241164#User:Yarnalgo this] by someone, where it shows Aitias has yet again turned to aggression, sarcasm, and rudeness when someone, quite within their rights, granted rollback to somebody Aitias disagreed with. The discussion then moved to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aitias&oldid=277309639#WP:PERM.2FR his talk page], where I told him how concerned I was. I then noticed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAitias&diff=277203751&oldid=277203333 this] inappropriate revert of a good faith edit. I asked him about it, and he pointed to the rollback feature page as his reasoning. I explained to him the difference between user and user talk space, but he told me to stop discussing it and "wikilawyering". Since he refused to accept this was the case, I decided to come here, since I believe he is no longer suited to be in a position of authority, because he can't seem to handle it. When I implied I was going to request arbitration, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAitias&diff=277296733&oldid=277296458 egged me on], saying "Do it Majorly, do it", and continued to insist I was wrong. JulianColton and SWATJester both agreed that Aitias's revert was inappropriate, and Aitias did not provide any evidence or policy based reason why he was reverting a good faith edit. He continued to insist everyone except him was wrong, and
This is not the only thing I have discovered. Aitias makes a lot of edits, so it is difficult to go through them and find any potential problems, but I did see a lot of issues with the User:RMHED block. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive517#User:RMHED original post] contains comments from Aitias that appear to be unnecessarily goading, and begging some admin to block for longer, which was rather unnecessary considering several admins were dealing with it. He was asked on several occasions on the thread to disengage - he did not listen, instead creating a further (pointless) thread about off-wiki attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive517#Off-wiki_harassment_by_User:EricBarbour]. He then proceeded to create an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMHED&diff=prev&oldid=273378029 RFC], despite the user being blocked, and the issue long over - an example of adding further fuel to the fire (that had burned out pretty much by then in any case). The page was deleted, but Aitias simply did not get the hint [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&diff=prev&oldid=273378944] to stop it. His continued posts to the page caused MZMcBride to ask him to stop posting there. Aitias [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aitias/archive_5#User_talk:RMHED argued] about it, and continued to post there anyway [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMHED&direction=prev&oldid=274563898#Vanishing], fussing about an apparent COI - comments are further goading the editor whose talk it was.
Line 86 ⟶ 81:
----
Taking everything into account, I think it's safe to say that I did ''at no time'' misuse, let alone abuse, my administrator tools; also, I never did violate [[WP:NPA]] or [[WP:CIVIL]]. There are, simply, certain editors (mostly Majorly, MZM and Rjd) who dislike me —they are, of course, perfectly entitled to that— however, the problem is that you can provide as many strong, undeniable arguments as possible, you can be proved right, and they ''still'' will remain unreasonable. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to that as well. However, if those people come here claiming that I would be unwilling to learn anything, everyone should be aware that this basically means nothing else than I don't give my blessing to everything they say. I am perfectly willing to learn and admit mistakes, but I am not willing to agree with everyhting they want me to agree. However, disagreeing with certain viewpoints of them is not a reason for desysoping or whatsoever. In case the Committee thinks it is, I am happy with that as well; I am not at all attached to the tools, I use them to do a lot of thankless work and to help the project, not because I would get a big bang out of using them. Anyway, thank you for your consideration. — [[User:Aitias|<
----
Line 93 ⟶ 88:
:Finally, I'd like to sincerely apologise to all persons who feel I was unfair/impolite towards them, who feel I have taken unfair/bad decisions, who feel I was an unfair/bad administrator and editor and I'd also like to truly apologise for any mistake I have made. I honestly can assure you that I have always acted with the best of intentions; I have always tried to do what I thought was the best for the project — if I have failed to do so, I am genuinely sorry. <br> <br>
:Thanks, <br>
:— [[User:Aitias|<
==Preliminary decisions==
Line 118 ⟶ 113:
** I would like to wait to hear from Ncmvocalist before deciding whether to accept a case or desysop due to the resignation. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I generally share the sentiments expressed by Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. I would also note that the time and participation of the RfC was limited (albeit in large part due to Aitias' statement). However, I am inclined to accept this request. A clear pattern of behavior is being asserted as a continuing problem and we should take credible concerns about administrative misconduct very seriously. Disputes usually must exhaust the community's options before arbitration. Given the statements provided, it would be beyond my expectations to insist that the community holds another discussion. I cannot decline this request unless there are clear indications that another RfC will not simply lead to this case being heard some weeks down the road. (For example, Aitias showing that he understands the concerns and would heed the community consultation.) [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 07:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' - We've long criticized RfC for being flawed. In fact, that should not be taken as granted since there are many succesful RfCs. But, for me, two RfCs in three months would mean that something is wrong and that the RfC process is really flawed (granted). Actually, we are already having a second RfC up here and it still seems that arbitration is needed. -- [[User:FayssalF|<
:* Ncmvocalist, according to what I gathered from the whole comments and statements above, I understood that the community agree—in general—that arbitration is needed. After measuring the situation, I found myself agreeing with the need of an arbitration case —a position I explained aove. Now, while I do respect the analysis you reserved to the ArbCom process in general and to my positions in particular I still don't understand the fact of you commenting at this venue and making suggestions to the Committee when you believe this whole process is flawed. Please note that this is not personal criticism as much as it is a good faith analysis of the good faithed analysis you've just made. -- [[User:FayssalF|<
*'''Accept''' — [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 172 ⟶ 167:
1) [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]] are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions, and should address, rather than dismiss, reasonable concerns raised by other users.
:''Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Editor conduct===
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]], [[Wikipedia:Civility|incivility]], [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assumptions of bad faith]], and [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|disruptive point-making]], is prohibited.
:''Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Granting of rollback rights===
3) Administrators are expected to apply good judgment in addressing requests for userrights that they are empowered to grant, such as [[Wikipedia:rollback|rollback]]. When administrators disagree as to whether rollback should be granted to a particular editor, they should discuss the matter collegially with the goal of reaching a consensus decision. To the extent possible, rollback requests should be handled efficiently and in a non-bureaucratic manner.
:''Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Right to vanish===
4) Vanishing is the act of disassociating the identity of a user account from the identity, and is intended for those who wish to leave the project permanently. It is not meant to be used as a wikibreak, or to be used as a fresh start for a user not in good standing.
:''Passed 9 to 3, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Feuds and quarrels===
5) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.
:''Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Blocking===
6) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.
:''Passed 9 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Policies===
7) Policies need to be approached with common sense. Administrators enforcing policies should adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|ignore the rules]] on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, or when two or more policies conflict.
:''Passed 10 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Contesting a candidacy for speedy deletion===
8) Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Any editor except a page's creator, acting in good faith and pursuant to a reasonable interpretation of policy, may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions.
:''Passed 11 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
==Findings of fact==
Line 214 ⟶ 209:
1) In March 2009, a request for arbitration was filed against Aitias. This Committee voted to accept the case, but at about the same time, Aitias announced that he was leaving the project. Accordingly, Aitias's administrator privileges were suspended temporarily, without prejudice, and the arbitration case was held in abeyance, with the understanding that the case would be reopened upon his return to editing. Approximately one month later, Aitias returned to editing, and we opened the case, directing that Aitias's adminship remain suspended, without prejudice to our ultimate decision, until the case was resolved.
:''Passed 15 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Aitias' conduct===
Line 224 ⟶ 219:
3) During the period from when administrators could begin granting rollback to April 10, 2009, Aitias was among the most active administrators on [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias/Evidence#Rollback_granting.2Fremoving_data]). During this period, he repeatedly conflicted with other administrators who disagreed with his decisions to deny rollback to several users requesting it, and often failed to address such disagreements in an appropriately collegial manner ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=251935290#User:NightFalcon90909], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=277655746#User:Yarnalgo], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=271896115#User:Jpoelma13]) evident by Aitias’ apparent high standards in handing out the tool ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Header&diff=prev&oldid=256482671]).
:''Passed 13 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Aitias and RMHED===
5) In December 2008, Aitias blocked RMHED for violation of [[WP:3RR|the three-revert rule]] in response to an edit war over a [[WP:CSD|CSD]] tag on [[Manning Marable]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Aitias&page=User%3ARMHED&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manning_Marable&action=history&offset=200812290140&dir=prev&limit=10] The other editor involved in the edit war was not blocked by Aitias or any other administrator. The block was overturned on review, during which there was discussion of what steps might be most appropriate when a CSD tag was repeatedly reapplied. Following the unblock, Aitias did not withdraw, but continued to discuss the block on RMHED's user talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARMHED&diff=260906027&oldid=260770790][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARMHED&action=history&offset=20081230165016&limit=107]
:''Passed 9 to 1, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Aitias and RMHED (II)===
6) In February 2009, RMHED was again blocked for edit-warring. Aitias participated in the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive517#User:RMHED|ANI discussion]] of RMHED's actions, as well as removing derogatory comments from RMHED's talk page and commenting on RMHED's talk page, despite repeated requests to disengage.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias/Evidence#February_2009]
:''Passed 10 to 1, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
==Remedies==
Line 241 ⟶ 236:
===Aitias's suspension confirmed===
1.1) Aitias's administrator privileges are suspended for a period of "time served," i.e. from the date he returned to editing until the close of this case. Aitias's adminship shall be restored with the closing of this case, subject to the other remedies contained in this decision.
:''Passed 10 to 3, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Aitias admonished===
2.1) Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments, and is warned to avoid such comments in the future.
:''Passed 13 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
===Aitias restricted===
3) Aitias is not to participate at [[WP:RFR|Requests for rollback]], including its talk page, for six months.
:''Passed 14 to 0, 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)''
==Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions==
Line 257 ⟶ 252:
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration cases|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
{{NOINDEX}}
| |||