Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2/Proposed decision

message: The word is used repeatedly, but it looks like you mean constitute. --Michael Snow 07:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construe? 

message: " 2.1) The recreation of the deleted content at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula does not construe recreation of the article Shawn Mikula."
This looks like it is going to pass, so I think the Arbitrators need to go a step further with it.  If this is true, then some comment on the actions of Snowspinner is needed.  Specifically, Snowspinner engaged in revert warring (repeated insertion of the CSD tag), deleted the page himself, and then blocked Anthony over this. I am not saying any sanction is called for this, but some comment would be nice since his aggressiveness seems over-the-top. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
(poking my head back in for a moment) Netoholic said it well. I don't mean to endorse Anthony's behavior, but is he to be penalized for revert warring over unwanted and unjustified edits to a page in his own userspace, a page which, by current policies and by the arbcom's own interpretation of those policies, was perfectly legitimate? Are Messrs. Sandifer and Gerard to be let off without even a warning, despite picking a fight with an illegitimate revert war over a page in someone else's userspace, and despite deleting that page quite against CSD policy? This hardly seems fair. (And one unrelated comment: Neutrality, for appearance's sake, may wish to abstain from voting on FOF #3.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding [[User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula]] 

message: First off, I apologize if I'm making more edits to this page and bringing up more points of argument and concern than some of the other participants are comfortable with. However, this is effectively a disciplinary hearing, and my job is to do the best I can to appropriately make points which challenge accusations, presumptions, and actions against the person I'm representing. I don't feel I should *have* to apologize, but I've certainly received the impression so far that I shouldn't argue so much (or, perhaps, to expect to be fully heard and considered), which I think is plainly and fundamentally wrong.
Anyway, to the point. This remedy is almost an exact cut and paste (by some definitions, completely identical) to the agreement (aka standing order) entered by Anthony on 24 July 2004, with the exception that it has no sunset provision.
I don't see why this is warranted given the evidence.
1. It has been established that the CSD on Anthony's userpage was unwarranted and in opposition to consensual practice. His only crime was to participate in an edit war in his user space with Snowspinner, as a result of Snowspinner's act which was not substantiated either by user space policy or deletion consensus.
2. The standing order was reconsidered by the three mediators charged with stewarding the agreement between 15 and 19 Feb (see Evidence), and the result of that reconsideration was that the order was only warranted for 3 more months (which was in itself a questionable outcome considering this was an agreement between Anthony and Raul, and not an Arbitration decree, and therefore any amendment to its provisions should have had Anthony's agreement). The implication, voiced by the third mediator (who, it should be noted, voted to close the agreement immediately due to that questionableness, rather than extend for the full 6 months as proscribed), was the acknowledgement that Anthony had, under the agreement, "reformed somewhat".
The only Finding of Fact so far indicating wrongdoing by Anthony was his involvement in an edit war in his user space, and two comments allegedly incivil (note that the reasons why these are or should be considered incivil has not been discussed). 
I must assume that if these deliberations are open, that the only basis for proposing a listed remedy are the wrongdoings listed in the findings of fact. Therefore, it is this edit war (in which, of course, Anthony was not the only participant) and these two comments which are the basis for forcing the terms of the agreement onto Anthony (explicitly sidestepping the mediative process which maintained the agreement). 
It's been established that user space is special. If there is any area of WP where "ownership" is generally and tacitly approved, it is in a user's user page space. Snowspinner ignored user space policy as well as deletion consensus to challenge and article in Anthony's user space with a CSD, attempting to use a policy which does not explicitly apply to user space (or to cross-namespace situations). Anthony responded in an attempt to protect his own user space, that is, to defend against distruption of that space by another party.
I have to argue that, if we agree that user space grants the user "broad leeway", then an edit war in one's own user space to defend that space from another member -- especially one that is flouting consensus to do so -- must be the least damnable class of edit warring.
I would go further to argue that anyone who continues to participate in their side of an edit war in someone else's user space and without any explicit consensual mandate to interfere in it as established in the Principles and Findings of Fact herein as well as proscribed in other previously indicated places, is the more damnable party.
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 19:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
:I have done a bunch of findings of fact which concern the background of this dispute. I question, how relevant events which occured in the first half of 2004 relate to the prospects for Anthony's behavior in the future. This is why I suggested closing of the case, but I think there is some feeling that some sort of general remedy is necessary. I am open for suggestions from Anthony or his advocate. Fred Bauder 22:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
::I note your findings of fact, and my issue with them is that they do not take into account any of the context added by my evidence. I added to my statement today regarding this portion of the case, making a case for that context and other serious concerns I have with the current state of that order -- which was an explicit agreement and not an imposition.
::So, the fact that Anthony withdrew from the agreement (on its face) leads to the forceful imposition of the order for a longer period, in disregard of the mediators' decision indicating that he was making progress? I don't follow. What I'd like to know is what wrongdoing(s) specifically require this particular remedy. Is it the historic complaints, which, as you point out, are becoming very dated? Is it the Snowspinner complaint, which, as has been established, was instigated by an unsupported misconstruction of policy by an admin? 
::One option may be for Anthony to return to the agreement as it was when he announced his withdrawal, and ride it out under the same terms. I would still want to see my concerns about its reconsideration on 15-19 Feb addressed (see statement).
::Now, I guess I'd like to know if the entire history of complaints against Anthony are weighing heavily on the reasoning behind this remedy. If it is, than that history needs to be addressed and clarified down to the cruxes (cruces?) of those complaints, and we can then refine a suitable proposal.
::-Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 01:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
===Previous Arbitration===
And speaking of "incivility", here is the mediation committees response when I was referred to them:
"Anthony has demonstrated his willingness to mediate; but his adversaries have not. Until they do, we must consider Anthony a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility."
BCorr & sannse, Co-chairs
On behalf of the Mediation Committee
I am still willing to mediate.  If Raul is also willing, then I think we should try that as a remedy first.  If he isn't, then I don't think there needs to be any sort of general remedy.  anthony 警告 22:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bans for disruption 

message: And speaking of "incivility", here is the mediation committees response when I was referred to them:
"Anthony has demonstrated his willingness to mediate; but his adversaries have not. Until they do, we must consider Anthony a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility."
BCorr & sannse, Co-chairs
On behalf of the Mediation Committee
I am still willing to mediate.  If Raul is also willing, then I think we should try that as a remedy first.  If he isn't, then I don't think there needs to be any sort of general remedy.  anthony 警告 22:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Arbitration

message: I suggest that Anthony be banned from editing in the Wikipedia namespace, save for requests for arbitration, mediation, and RfCs that he is involved in. While Anthony's editing in the previous six months has been better than he editing before the parole, quite frankly, he has contributed nothing of value to the Wikipedia namespace, and almost all of his disruption (Save the clitoris dispute) was in the Wikipedia namespace. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of any Wikipedia namespace edits Anthony has done that weren't provocative or disruptive. Snowspinner 19:59, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Frankly, I'm not aware of any proviso or guideline called Wikipedia:Don't be provocative. Such a notion, in fact, would fly directly in the face of Wikipedia:Be bold, a proviso I am familiar with. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 21:07, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
::OK, let me reiterate what Snowspinner was saying in more blunt words - virtually all (if not all) of Anthony's edits in the Wikipedia namespace have been trolling. →Raul654 21:17, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
:::Well help me out here, because I have yet to see anyone point to any definition of "trolling" or "provocative". Moreover, the lack of such a definition makes the remedies that much more of a problem as they have no provisions as to how to define them. In fact, the agreement was so blatant that it pretty much said that an admin could unilaterally decide that something Anthony said or did would qualify and therefore be grounds for a 24 hour block. The fact that Anthony willingly submitted (more to the point, proposed) such a remedy illustrates just how impossible he felt it was to ever receive unambiguous definitions and justifications for why his actions are continually regarded as "incivil", "trolling" and etc. -- and he basically willingly submitted himself to the whim of those admins who are among his opponents in order to avoid being run out on a rail.
:::Apparently, suggesting that someone should have "mind[ed] their own business" when it comes to someone else's user space is "incivil" and grounds for remedy. (Ignoring the question of whether or not persisting in an edit war in someone else's user space is "civil" or not.) And apparently that remedy is to allow all admins to define Anthony's actions however they feel and use it as justification to block him. And Anthony is just supposed to Assume good faith as reassurance that it won't ever be used inappropriately by those who simply don't like him -- irregardless of whether many such people ever Assume good faith of Anthony in return.
:::Admins are free to block Anthony just because he gets the goat of people, like who make completely illogical and meaningless justifications for their votes (they are allowed to vote how they want for whatever reason they want -- and so should he), or because he votes in the face of how people expect that he should vote, or because he calls the community on its inconsistent enforcement of standard operating principles like avoiding non-free images when it puts egg on their face. That's all baseless persecution, and embarrassed bullying, and it's just wrong. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 06:27, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
::::Well help me out here, because I have yet to see anyone point to any definition of "trolling" or "provocative". 
:::::Trolling is hard to define, but to paraphrase Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. So let's consider some of Anthony's actions: repeatedly voting keep on the VFD in order to provoke others? Yep, trolling. Removing VFD nominations because you don't like them? Yes. Repeatedly edit warring with others? Yes. Nominating a short list as a featured article candidate? Yep. Following it up the next day by nominating a stub? Yes. Edit warring on the main page? Indeed. Repeatedly making numerous frivilous requests for undeletion? Undoutedly. Violating a previous arbcom decree to stop trolling the VFD? Absolutely. To paraphrase David Gerard - 'if everyone thinks you're being a dick, you probably are'. You might also want to see Wikipedia:What is a troll, because I think Anthony has committeed almost every misbehavior listed there. 
::::The fact that Anthony willingly submitted (more to the point, proposed) such a remedy illustrates just how impossible he felt it was to ever receive unambiguous definitions and justifications for why his actions are continually regarded as "incivil", "trolling" and etc. 
:::::Nice try to rewrite history, too bad it's all fiction. Anthony agreed to the standing order because he was a day or two from the arbcom opening a second case against him, in which all of the actions I just named would have been used against him. He knew this as well as I; the only unknown factor would he how harsh the arbcom sactions would have been. 
:::::On the other hand, to balance this out, Anthony's useful contributions have been virtually nonexistant. Of his 500 most recent edits (because there are those to keep saying that he's reformed, that he's not nearly as bad has he was) that he has made since Dec 22, I counted 84 in the main name space, of which 70-80 were trivial redirects from common typos (baseballs -> baseball, for example). For comparison, I found 68 edits related to his edit warring on Clitoris, 62 on Shawn Mikula, and dozens more on requests for page protection and requests for undeletion (which, as we know from other evidence presented in this case, virtually all of which are trolling). So to summarize, Anthony is far, far more trouble than he is worth. The time put in by other good users dealing with his trolling is vastly greater than the time he has invested in improving the encyclopedia. →Raul654 08:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Also, for the arbitrators who are reading this: I'd like to voice my concern that the proposals being pass are far, far too leniet. All three mediators came back and said in effect that Anthony was still trolling (although they indicated he had reformed to an extent and disagreed on how to renew the standing order) and two of them voted to extend the old proposal. The new proposals are far, far less strict, which doesn't make sense since the older (much stricter) one failed to stop his trolling. →Raul654 08:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
::::::My most recent edits have been an attempt to defend myself from this arbitration.  That's why I agreed to the order last time, because arbitration over this matter is a big waste of everyone's time.  I don't think I would have been sanctioned very much at all.  I entered the agreement to avoid the arbitration process itself.  As the mediation committee said, I have demonstrated my willingness to mediate but my adversaries have not. Until they do, I must be considered a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility.  There's the incivility Mark.
::::::Your examples of my alleged "trolling" beg the question of what trolling is.  "Violating a previous arbcom decree to stop trolling the VFD".  That's grand.  I am a troll because I violate a decree to stop trolling.  "repeatedly voting keep on the VFD in order to provoke others"?  Have you ever considered that maybe I actually want those article I voted to keep kept?  Besides the fact that you're bringing up ancient history, I have have every right to vote however I want, and the arb com specificially said so.  As for removing VFD nominations, I don't think I've even done that other than once or twice a very long time ago for reasons which were totally justified (even the VFD policies say that when a VFD fails it is supposed to be removed, and that any user, not just an admin, can do it).  I made a few nominations on the featured articles page which people didn't agree with.  That was over a year ago, and when I realized they weren't going to be accepted I removed them.  All that's left is edit warring, and even that was greatly exaggerated.  Those 68 edits "related to [my] edit warring on Clitoris"?  They were on the talk page.  So I guess according to you it's trolling to discuss something on a talk page (since "virtually all if not all" of my edits are trolling).  I got involved in two edit wars over the course of 9 months, which is probably less than you or snowspinner.  And there's already an arb com ruling focussing on that. anthony 警告 12:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed remedy

message: Just a note, I'm adding some further evidence to the evidence page. Ironically, in responding to the possibility of a ban from the Wikipedia namespace, Anthony has demonstrated once again how necessary sanction is of him. He has begun removing comments from pages in the Wikipedia namespace without explanation, and when asked, has responded with hostility instead of explanation. He has also suggested that his contributions may not be licensed under the GFDL. I ask the arbcom again to consider harsh sanction. Snowspinner 16:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
It's unclear to me what this is evidence of.  I never refused to strike through my comments.  In fact, I did so.  I said on IRC that I'd prefer to remove them completely.  What exactly is your evidence of?  What did I do wrong? anthony 警告 17:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further evidence