Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

AMiB is unblocked early to work on this case[edit]

1) Please unblock AMiB early with the following conditions:

He have no contact with Ikip off of this case.

He avoid the ARS for the duration of this case.

He not use his admin tools in any capacity till the close of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I supported this on our mailing list, but in any event it has become moot, as the block as expired by time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Thanks. rootology/equality 18:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prudent, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately unnecessary; there was no rush and any comment I might've made would have been premature. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FA_Man_In_Black. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict with Sam.] As the case clerk, I've been asked over clerks-l to look into unblocking AMiB—and have initiated discussion with him regarding it. If a satisfactory agreement can be reached on this note, a full motion to unblock may be unnecessary. AGK 18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private evidence, nature but not specifics[edit]

2) In regards to the private evidence, since this is live now, can we please get an extremely swift clarification of whether:

The full details can be posted?

The specific policy violation in question can be posted?

The specific end result of those policy violations can be posted (but without private info/links to private info)?

Comment by Arbitrators:

1) No, 2) socking, 3) No. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It's going to really quickly swell up into a fat elephant, otherwise. I mailed the AC earlier about this but hadn't heard back. rootology/equality 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I will accept on good faith that this is significant enough to be included while accepting ArbCom's decision not to disclose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip added as a party[edit]

3) Ikip (talk · contribs) is added as a named party to the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It would likely make sense to add him, yes, since the main conflict centers around those two. Wizardman 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ikip is on Wikibreak (using the enforcer tool). I could still add though Ikip won't be able to respond to evidence. Wizardman 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Might it not be prudent to also include all editors with whom AMIB has had conflicts, reather than just the most recent? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't think this is in need of much justification. The whole case basically revolves revolves around the conflict between AMIB and Ikip on ARS related matters. His name is mentioned a thousand times on /Evidence even when my stuff is excluded, and in terms of disruptive behaviour there is plenty to look at. – Steel 19:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikibreak enforcer can be trivially bypassed by disabling a browser's javascript, though failing that he could email any responses to the arbcom or a clerk and have someone else post them here. Regardless I don't think a well timed wikibreak should allow someone to avoid criticism of their recent activities in an arb case. – Steel 20:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a trivial matter to clear his javascript file so that he can log back in. That alone should not prevent us from adding Ikip as a party if the committee sees it fit to do so. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree, as if the scope is on AMiB's conduct, then much of the problems antedated the interaction with Ikip. Looks like it has happened anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Editor conduct[edit]

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Obvious, factual, long-standing, indisputable, required of all us in all situations, but especially of anyone who is an administrator or higher-level user. rootology/equality 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as editors should not harass others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Standard. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles...one that must always be observed in order to preserve the community. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editorial process[edit]

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from Articles to Templates to Project space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Obvious, indisputable. rootology/equality 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as it is not all that hard to maintain politeness. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Standard. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as editors must know when to back off and seek other ways to solve differences. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring[edit]

3) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Indisputable. rootology/equality 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as while I can think of instances where reverting someone multiple times may be necessary (such as say if someone keeps posting bogus information about someone else to harass them), in most cases the excessive reverts on articles over content is unhelpful. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support applicable here. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit warring smacks of WP:OWN and WP:POINT and is disruptive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith and disruption[edit]

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Indisputable. rootology/equality 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as many people believe what they are doing is right, but can still be wrong nevertheless. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Applicable here. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As even WP:AGF can be abused. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism[edit]

5) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Especially indisputable. rootology/equality 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As the articulation of an important principle, something is be missing. There is sense in which recidivist conduct represents both a missed opportunity and a failure of informal and formal dispute resolution systems -- not in specific incidents, but also more generally across the broad spectrum of collaborative editors. In my view, some acknowledgment of this implicit optimism needs to be encompassed within the express ambit of this restatement. --Tenmei (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as that is usually how it works here, i.e. increased sanctions for repeated behavior. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanctions" sounds a bit legalistic. As far as I know none of the parties have recieved any official sanctions from ArbCom in the past. Perhaps this can be reworded/expanded to make it apply more to this particular case? ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support anyone who has been repeatedly sanctioned begins to stretch WP:AGF to the breaking point by repeating the same or similar actions which had resulted in the earlier sacntions. If one cannot accept the lessons of one's errors, increasing severity of sanctions (hopefully) lessens continued disruption. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations of administrators[edit]

6) 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; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

From the Sarah Palin RFAR. Long-standing and factual; only modification of the successful finding there is the addition of "(in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise)". We admins, as models of decorum and behavior, have to set not just the model but the expectation of how our peers will act. If we routinely flaunt the non-admin-tool-use policy, we're not fit to handle the big stuff. We need to make active efforts to always behave as if we're on a never-ending RFA. We have to set the example. rootology/equality 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is especially true in this case. AMIB may not violate 3RR on every edit war, but blocking the opposing party when s/he engaged in the dispute by edit warring is not a good role model behaviour. MythSearcher^talk 05:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, while administrators are humans as are all non-bot editors, I expect a bit better from them as they are more experienced. For example, administrators who say threaten opponents from even before they became administrators with blocks for which they have a history should not be administrators. And in any event, we should be able to look to administrators as leaders. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Standard. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suport With Adminship comes greater responsibility and the community expectation that an Admin will lead by example. They are held to a higher standard, and know it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Application and enforcement of policy must be even for any users[edit]

7.1) The technical ranks of Administrator, or higher, are never intended to confer any additional leeway, nor protection vs. valid sanctions for violations of policy, guidelines, or behavioral/social norms on Wikipedia. In other words, if two users both with five years of experience each performed comparable actions out of policy, if one is blocked 24 hours, they both should be blocked 24 hours. Administrators are never "more special" than non-Administrators in the adherence of policy. The same exact principles, rules, policies, guidelines, and expectations apply to all editors of Wikipedia at all times, with no exemptions, regardless of any technical, social, or perceived rank they enjoy. For example, any user with the technical or social ranks of "Steward", "Arbitration Committee Member", or "Founder" violating our policies on edit warring may be blocked or restricted from the editing of Wikipedia, no different than if such an editor were a simple "Editor". Admins should not have any special dispensation that every other non-admin would not enjoy. See also, Wikipedia:No vested contributors.

7.2) The technical ranks of Administrator, or higher, are never intended to confer any additional leeway, nor protection vs. valid sanctions for violations of policy, guidelines, or behavioral/social norms on Wikipedia. In other words, if two users both with five years of experience each performed comparable actions out of policy, if one is blocked 24 hours, they both should be blocked 24 hours. Administrators are never "more special" than non-Administrators in the adherence of policy. The same exact principles, rules, policies, guidelines, and expectations apply to all editors of Wikipedia at all times, with no exemptions, regardless of any technical, social, or perceived rank they enjoy. See also, Wikipedia:No vested contributors.

7.3) The technical ranks of Administrator, or higher, are never intended to confer any additional leeway, nor protection vs. valid sanctions for violations of policy, guidelines, or behavioral/social norms on Wikipedia. Administrators are never "more special" than non-Administrators in the adherence of policy. The same exact principles, rules, policies, guidelines, and expectations apply to all editors of Wikipedia at all times, with no exemptions, regardless of any technical, social, or perceived rank they enjoy. See also, Wikipedia:No vested contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

7.3 is reasonable (although it could use some copyediting, and might be better merged into the principle on the expected conduct of administrators). 7.1 and 7.2 are not, since blocks are applied on a case by case basis regardless of administrative status; two users may receive different-length blocks for the same action on the basis of past history, recidivism, and so forth even if both have edited Wikipedia for the same length of time. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Couple of wording versions. Obvious, long-overdue to be said outright, and endorsed by the Arbitration Committee in a finalized Proposed Decision. Time to burn down the farm for the good of the crops. None of us, from the new IP that never edited before, up to Jimbo, are exempt from the rules. We all serve at each other's pleasure, and it's high time we stopped lollygagging about fair play in our systems. rootology/equality 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The community as a whole is discussing this, at Wikipedia talk:Equality. An end-run around that discussion is not desirable. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7.1 and 7.2 seems overly forumlaic as blocks and other remedies should be applied on an individual basis. 7.3 also seems a bit wordy but the meaning behind it is relevant here. ThemFromSpace 04:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about winning[edit]

8) The purpose of Wikipedia is to collaborate and build a free encyclopedia. Users often become entrenched in conflicts, to the point where "winning" the conflict becomes a driving focus. This is patently unhelpful to the project, and persisting in such efforts in an ongoing manner is unacceptable. See also, WP:WINNER.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Far enough, although I dislike see-also links to essays. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Obvious. rootology/equality 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this. This is the sort of thing that would have more-productively been first introduced on my talk page than an RFAr. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support although WP:BATTLE should probably be substituted for WP:WINNER. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia is not survival of the fittest. It is a community supported by all working together, not working at odds. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of evidence is always on the blocker[edit]

9) Should an administrator block any other user, the burden of evidence and justification under policy is at all times on the blocking admin, and a valid reason for the block must be presented either in the block log, or if and when the block is challenged. A block without a valid policy justification, or one placed by an involved administrator, may be overturned one time by any other uninvolved admin immediately if the unblocking administrator deems it required. A block without policy-supported justification, or by an involved administrator, does not require the approval or feedback of the blocking administrator to overturn. This would never be construed as nor considered a Wheel War action on that first overturning. Any and all users with access to the technical ability to block are bound by this, with the exemption of blocks performed by the development staff, such as Brion Vibber and those working under him; anything labeled an official Arbitration Committee action; or any action cited as an WP:OFFICE action by a Wikimedia Foundation employee.

9.1) Should an administrator block any other user, the burden of evidence and justification under policy is at all times on the blocking admin, and a valid reason for the block must be presented either in the block log, or if and when the block is challenged. A block without a valid policy justification, or one placed by an involved administrator, may be overturned one time by any other uninvolved admin immediately if the unblocking administrator deems it required. A block without policy-supported justification, or by an involved administrator, does not require the approval or feedback of the blocking administrator to overturn. This would never be construed as nor considered a Wheel War action on that first overturning. Any and all users with access to the technical ability to block are bound by this, with the exemption of blocks performed by the development staff, such as Brion Vibber and those working under him; anything labeled an official Arbitration Committee action; any action affirmed as Arbitration enforcement, or any action cited as an WP:OFFICE action by a Wikimedia Foundation employee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs some changes to account for, e.g. arbitration enforcement actions, and so forth. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9.1 isn't really any better, in my view. I will not support anything that rescinds the requirements for overturning enforcement actions. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks broadly acceptable, though I'll have to consider some of the potential ramifications further. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Directly related to AMiB's block of Ikip[1], and what I believe is the sound principle and standard by which we can block any editor, be they an IP user, an editor, an admin, or even Jimmy and a clear review of undoing bad blocks, which seems to be a running theme in RFAR this week. Short version: anyone uninvolved can undo an out of policy, bad, or bogus block one time and is exempt from repercussion, as long as 1) you don't undo a block made by Devs to protect WP for technical reasons which hasn't been done in years; 2) don't undo anything cited in the block log as "Per the AC"; 3) you don't under an action by Cary or Godwin cited as Office. All the rest of us have to play by the same rulebook, no matter who we are. That includes every admin, CU, individual Arb, and Jimmy. rootology/equality 18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill: Is 9.1 better? I tried to close about every reasonable loophole on the first pass. rootology/equality 20:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill: then look at this edit. That just flat exempts the AE process along with official AC action, while leaving individual Arb actions (which aren't special) as normal admin actions. That covers the AC completely. rootology/equality 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Was there a block I didn't explain appropriately? This isn't used anywhere below. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related concepts and principles are common to set the tone in RFARs. Your block if Ikip--beyond being out of process and against policy--was poorly and amateurly handled as you blocked him, but didn't even have time to write up a cogent or sane explanation for it, and then spent 50% of the thread saying "I'll explain! I'll explain!" which is not how blocks are done today. If you can't keep current on practices, you shouldn't use the tools (and you've admitted as much, which is another reason for you to not have them anymore actually). rootology (C)(T) 13:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Ikip, I explained why, and you demanded specific evidence. While I was in the process of assembling that specific evidence, you unblocked him, based on accusations you never actually substantiated with diffs. If the burden of explanation is on someone taking an administrative action, I explained my reasons as well as you did. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A block should be explained at the time it is given out, not if and when it is challenged. Are the details for bad blocks in 9.1 supported by our policies or guidelines or are they just thrown up here at random? I've never seen this codified before. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suport A block should be explained at the time it is given out, not after the fact and not only after being challenged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved administrators[edit]

10) In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions typically to either the administrators' noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard for endorsement or review. This does not comply with policy. In such circumstances, the 'involved' administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by an uninvolved administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken whole from the Macedonia 2 RFAR underway, on this version, where it is passing 10-0 at this moment. I believe this reflects the current widely accepted standard of "involved admins". rootology/equality 13:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Taking an action to a forum for community review is always a good thing, whether he was initially an involved admin or not. I think a point to be made is that he had a good-faith belief that he was not involved yet the community thought otherwise. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:UNINVOLVED. The cart should not be placed in front of the horse. Report comes first, and then uninvolved Admins may or may not take action accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification as involved administrators[edit]

11) If an Administrator has in recent memory been in, but not limited to, dispute resolution; arbitration; what can be termed reasonably as "heated debate" or "hostile debate" about one or more subjects or topic areas; threats of dispute resolution; or edit warring, any of the involved parties may not use their Administrative tools toward the other party, except to facilitate the removal of WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Time that we began to nail down and defined "involved status" for ourselves. rootology/equality 21:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to lead to exactly the same fishing expeditions we saw at WP:ANI. We have a standard for involvement supported by the community as a whole at WP:INVOLVED, so we don't need arbcom to legislate their own, new standard of involvement. (Particularly given that Rootology hasn't proposed his new, much-lower standard for involvement there.) Particularly:

"Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."

"Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace."

Some specific advantage, specific content dispute, or specific conflict of interest needs to be established. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where your take and everyone else at ANI here was that you and Ikip were involved. The written policy at the INVOLVED page doesn't appear to reflect the current practice, which is much more liberal these days of "involved" status to make sure that we as admins toe our lines more finely. The facts are--you've been in constant conflict with Ikip; you and he are polar opposites on the various debates surrounding the ARS, it's content, focus and mission; you two have edit warred vs. each other. Do you disagree that this means the definition of involved? rootology/equality 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The written policy at INVOLVED doesn't reflect your personal opinion of what involvement should be. You've alleged that I'm in constant conflict with Ikip (without specifying what the conflict is), you've alleged that we were polar opposites on various debates surrounding ARS (when I was there to criticize canvassing efforts, particularly Ikip's canvassing efforts), and you've confused actions after April 26 with actions before April 26th. So yes, it would meet the definition of INVOLVED, if any of it were, you know, true. All you have established is a history of interaction with Ikip.

The standard you suggest is wide open to gaming, and, case in point, Ikip has vowed to game it. The bar is set high in order to better proof it against this gaming, and so that there has to be some specific locus of dispute or advantage or some long-term pattern of abuse.

On top of all of this, you reversed the block and I didn't dispute that reversal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not to my mind confusing anything; you and Ikip have been rubbing raw against each other for quite a while. The standard of involvement you've been advocating, to my eye, is simply not what it actually is in practice. We can natter and argue about the specific metrics of involvement till the cows come home, but you have been in conflict with the ARS and with Ikip and related issues. Do you want me to actually drag out section after section of permanent links from the ARS talk archives? Because I'd be more than happy to spend an hour or two plunging through those archives, if you want me to connect-the-dots the history. Your interpretation of involvement, I'll be frank, differs from what is in fact practice today, and what the Arbcom has been acting on lately.

And yes, he has that page, which patently is not helpful, but I can put a nonsense disclaimer on my page as well, and it changes nothing. rootology/equality 21:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Since I am a veteran, "established" editor, with over 25,000 edits, I am "special". To get me indefinitely blocked, you have to create an arbcom, an incredibly time consuming, emotional process, which means your edit history and behavior will be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb also." This is a specific threat to reverse any discussion of administrative action against him with scrutiny of the admin. This is the danger of a vague, broad standard for complete administrative recusal: that any discussion of editor conduct will be endlessly derailed by counteraccusations, lawyering, and accusations of hypocrisy.

As for the rest, if you're so absolutely sure that you have consensus for this new, unwritten policy, why haven't you written it down anywhere? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I never had to think especially deeply about it before this case, and it's inappropriate to go edit policy pages during an RFAR to suit the RFAR. See my reply below. rootology/equality 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've asserted that I'm involved, based on this new standard of involvement that didn't exist at the time, that was disputed by multiple editors and admins at the time in the ANI thread, and which you assert is backed by arbcom rulings made in the intervening month. You've proposed a new standard of involvement here, and not only is it a bad idea for reasons Steel and Kww and I have stated, but it also hadn't been proposed anywhere as of April 26. For violating this standard of involvement, you've variously proposed I be desysoped or topic banned.

The reason it's inappropriate to go edit policy pages during an RFAr to suit the RFAr is because you can't write a new rule, trawl through history to look for violations of that rule, then censure the violators. This is doubly silly when you haven't even proposed the rule anywhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example of why this proposal is fundamentally wrongheaded: by this standard, Rootology should not have reversed my administrative actions, because he was involved with me in a dispute over the definition of "involved" w.r.t. WP:INVOLVED, in the ANI thread discussing the block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to put up a FOF and evidence if you feel I was involved in that discussion when I said I was uninvolved a minute after I posted that first reply. By your collective logic here, are you saying the AC has been getting their standards of involvement wrong the past 3-4 years? rootology/equality 03:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a really dumb way to make a disruptive point, especially since I felt you acted correctly given the whole situation. It's just illustrative of how absolutely silly this standard is.

And to answer your question, no, I don't. The arbcom has always had this wording when the administrator was acting in a way that carelessly or intentionally gave them an advantage in a specific content dispute. You have alleged no specific content dispute; you haven't even suggested how I might have gained some advantage by blocking Ikip in April. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion your block on Ikip (as demonstrated from that discussion) was punitive--2 talk page posts 48+ hours earlier or so? It was game-playing--one more block on one of your principle opponents, if it sticks, makes your life in the future that much easier. The content dispute? You're one of the most known partisans on the other side of the political spectrum. You don't have to have a tug-of-war for some wording, or some content, to merit involvement. You've sparred with Ikip and the ARS folks again, and again, and again over the preceding months before the blocks. You may think it was somehow leaving you uninvolved, but it wasn't. Look again at the standards from recent cases--an admin was found "involved" for 100+ edits to an article and it's talk page. You have much more than that to various ARS pages, and to debates with Ikip on policy, and matters such as PRESERVE. You guys are two of the champions of the stupid Inclusion/Deletion Wars. For you to be called uninvolved with Ikip is for the AC to declare me Founder of Wikipedia. rootology/equality 04:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So your belief is that my involvement consists of some sort of "Inclusion/Deletion War", rather than any specific content dispute, and that it was a catspaw to damage one of my opponents in this larger battlefield. (I agreed with him and asked for his input on WP:PRESERVE and agreed with him on WP:FICT, so those aren't, you know, disputes.)

I will leave it to the arbcom to decide if the unsupported assertion that article structure is some sort of battleground and that Ikip and I are avowed warriors in this battle is sufficient evidence to constitute involvement that prevents administrative action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This proposal defines "involved" in terms of "involved" and "been in[volved with]", which doesn't get us anywhere. – Steel 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the standard in practice we've been operating under. rootology/equality 21:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: [2][3][4][5][6] and that is just on recently closed cases. Read each link--even a prolonged editing history on a given topic or page makes us "involved". I don't write the standards and best practices; I just follow them. Or is the AC just making these up outside of current practice and policy? rootology/equality 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of them is a specific content dispute. (And, um, most of them are the same arbcom case apparently.) This is already covered in the written version of INVOLVED. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's from two cases, the Macedonia 2 and JzG RFARs just closed. Here are many more. rootology/equality 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In every single case, the administrator in question was involved in a specific content dispute, be it about Macedonia, cold fusion, Scientology, whatever. Where's the specific content dispute Ikip and I have entered into proximate to April? Where's the advantage I gain? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible proposal. Once an admin notices misbehaviour in any area he cares about, he will nearly always wind up "involved" under this definition, and then be unable to act. Properly gamed, this standard could paralyze giant swaths of the admin community. We already have enough trouble with inclusionists claiming that deletionists can't block them and vice versa without encoding this trivial level of encounter into an arbitration ruling which becomes a defacto policy. The current text of WP:INVOLVED defines things well enough. There is a group of admins that is in favor of installing a hair-trigger standard for involvement, but I'm not persuaded yet that there is a consensus in favor of their position. If they choose to try to change policy to match their vision, that's their right, but it isn't appropriate to do so by arbcom fiat.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you apparently canvassing for comments here? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly unhelpful comment. Please just excuse yourself from the discussion if you can't participate positively. Also, haven't we had this EXACT discussion about making erroneous accusations of canvassing? Specifically, didn't I tell you to not accuse Kww of canvassing after he posted a single message on a single talk page. Astonishing. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He asked you, someone who is obviously sympathetic (see User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#WP:STOP_MINDLESSLY_GAINSAYING_ANY_DELETE_RATIONALE_OFFERED_IN_AFD and User_talk:Protonk/Archive_4#3RR_and_OR) to comment here. Arbitrators should be aware of anyone who was specifically asked to comment in a thread and if they have potential biases. If I posted a note on someone's talk page who I know is likely to agree with my position saying, hey, please comment in this case, it would be entirely appropriate of someone to note that. Per the table on Wikipedia:Canvassing, "canvassing" is not merely about number of notices. If the message is biased and the audience partisan than these also fall under the inappropriate listings per that guideline. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. A single talk page message is so far from canvassing that repeated accusations of such are disruptive. We have had this discussion before. I don't want to have it again. If you accuse Kww of canvassing again after he posts a single message on an editor's talk page, I will start a discussion in AN/I to have you blocked or otherwise prevented from interacting with him. Is that clear? Protonk (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, this measure appears to be a reconsideration of a previous AN/I debate about what constituted an involved admin. It was my opinion there and remains so today that root's view of INVOLVED is not supported by the text of the policy. We are, as fabrictramp says in better words in that thread, deeply in the shit if we determine that all "inclusionist" admins are too involved to block "deletionist" editors and vice versa. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as no administrator with a history of disputes with another editor is in a legitimate, unbiased opinion to threaten blocks against his/her perceived opponents. Period. Were I an administrator, I would not block anyone who seems like an opponent of mine and I cannot take seriously anyone who obviously has a history with me who would threaten me by engaging in Wikipedia:WikiBullying: "WikiBullying is the act of using the Wikipedia system and the power of editing to threaten or intimidate other editors. Doing so violates the civility principles of Wikipedia and is not tolerated...A 'no-edit' order is a message sent to a single editor or to the Wikipedia community not to edit at all or in a particular manner, or not to edit a particular page or part of a page at all or in a particular manner." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ArbCom is the proper venue to create definitions of policy such as this. The proper venue is an at-large community discussion unrelated to a particular editor's case. Arbcom should use strict definitions like this only after community consensus has defined it. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support With Adminship comes the acknowledgement of a responsibility to be able to step back from a disagreement and say to themselves "Am I too caught up? Might this be better handled from others less involved?". WP:UNINVOLVED is not to be pushed to the breaking point. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators and edit warring[edit]

12) As users that were at one point trusted by the community enough to be given sysop tools, Administrators should have an understanding of the nature of our policies on edit warring. It is unreasonable to assume that any active Administrator can misinterpret their being blocked multiple times[7] for edit warring as anything less than a rejection of the practices they are engaged in per community norms.[8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can't believe I need to enunciate this, but apparently I do.[9] rootology/equality 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that RFAr is the last step on the ladder, for dealing with users who ignore or reject other means of resolution. Where's the evidence that I would be unresponsive to an RFC on this matter? Why arbcom first? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have four years of edit warring and blocks for the same since you became an admin, it is reasonable to infer that edit warring is how you resolve disputes. Are you defending your 12 blocks? rootology/equality 01:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you inferred that I would be completely unresponsive to any sort of discussion, based only on my block log. Or was there some other reason? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think you're exceptionally skilled at intercourse and discussion, which is why you are still an administrator in spite of your unfortunately rampant edit warring and constantly getting blocked for disruptive edit warring. I had no intention of filing the RFAR until I put 1+2+3 together, which was your ongoing disruption via edit warring(1), your general refusal that I observed over the course of your discussions to be fully responsive to change unless it suit your needs(2), and your misuse of the Admin tools in regards to Ikip(3). I can't fucking stand Arbitration and hate being a party to it because of bad experiences in the distant past, but it's a required evil to keep things under a semblance of control in this sometimes madhouse. I wouldn't have filed a point blank RFAR like this on someone unless I thought it was absolutely required. I truly believe based on everything I've seen of your actions, and even your refusal to say something like "I will never edit war again, it was wrong," combined with your still constant refusal to even consider you and Ikip are involved unless it meets your narrow absurdly definition of involvement that is incompatible with our highest levels of dispute resolution, makes you not fit for an adminship collectively. I applaud you big time for sticking by your perceived principles, but I don't believe they're principles for someone to be an admin, and I honestly believe if you stood for RFA today or in the next year you'd lose. I'm sorry. Consider this the equivalent of a firm RFA "oppose," and why I think this entire sad process is required here. I don't know how I can make this any more clear. I'm sorry. rootology/equality 03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said that "I will never edit war again" because I am human and I make mistakes and I think it's more practical to have plans to deal with mistakes rather than to assume perfection. I've said it was wrong repeatedly, including immediately before you filed this RFAr. You assumed that any such discussion would not get any productive response, and you can go on and on and on about justifications for this but it just doesn't fly when this is a project built on collegial discussion and RFAr has 17 million gigantic neon signs that say "This is the last resort in dispute resolution, not the first."

It is extremely disappointing to me that the only conversation you are willing to have with me is one that involves threats of sanctions from the get-go, and I think it speaks less to me than to you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that your "neverending RFA" standard for deadminning is another policy that is limited to you. Administrators are not and should not be expected to be popular and should not be expected to cautiously avoid controversial areas and editors, and unpopularity and controversy are almost always the main indicators of success at RFA. Instead, administrators are expected to use the administrative tools to effectively prevent disruption and execute the sort of tasks trusted users are needed to do, and administrators are deadminned when they have been found to have violated that trust. Using RFAr as some sort of end run around the lack of success in establishing some other administrator recall process, based on your personal standard of what administrator recall should involve, is not what arbcom is for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I understand the points that Rootology and AMIB make above. AMIB has never been the subject of ArbCom sanctions as far as I know, but as the edit-warring behaviour isn't the major point of debate here it could be reasonable to investigate it further. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support With Adminship comes the acknowledgement of a responsibility to greater care toward implementation of policy and guideline, not a blanket caveat that adminship removes that responsibility. Admins are held to a higher standard of behavior. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by administrators[edit]

13) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision where it passed[10] 10-0. AMiB's constant edit warring and edit warring blocks would seem to be counter to this finding. rootology/equality 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support per precedent. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the evidence shows that AMIB has engaged in "sustained disruption". This is nothing compared to the scope of the Macedonia case where this was taken from. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Administrators are held to a higher expectation of behavior. Repeated disruptions, whether repeated at one topic, or spread out over many topics within the body encyclopedic, is cause for being desysopped. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators not to act unless uninvolved[edit]

14) Administrators may not use their administrative tools in any situation unless they are uninvolved. An administrator will be involved, for the purposes of user-specific tools such as blocking, if they have a prior history of conflict with the affected user(s). An administrator will be involved, for the purposes of article-specific tools such as page protection, if they have previously substantively edited the content of the affected article(s).

Administrators should also refrain from action if there is doubt as to whether they are involved, or if they could reasonably be perceived as being involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG where it passed 10-0.[11] rootology/equality 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again I have problems with the definition of involved status. The involved status for page protection is more clear and perhaps this can be worded back into the status for admins. Perhaps "if they have a prior history of substantive conflict with the affected user" would be a better point to make. ThemFromSpace 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposed Adding substantive adds yet another qualifier that itself could become a point of contention. Even one disruptive edit qualifies as involved. It need not be 3 or 6 or 10. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

AMiB has a years-long pattern of edit warring blocks[edit]

1) AMiB has been blocked 12 times for edit warring since his RFA.[12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. rootology/equality 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support per block log. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord yes. AMIB is a hardcore edit warrior. Jtrainor (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per findings of fact. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB has a history of conflict with ARS and inclusionism/deletionism[edit]

2) AMiB has been involved with the Article Rescue Squadron and the area of "inclusionism vs. deletionism" for a long time, and has often been in conflict in regards to it.[13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. rootology/equality 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, there's a missing step in logic here. You start with the claim that I'm outspoken on article inclusion, which is true (but not backed by the evidence linked, but whatever). You then add the claim that Ikip is an outspoken inclusionist (do we need evidence of that?). But then you jump to the conclusion that I'm in opposition to Ikip on article inclusion. Where is that in evidence? If you're going to claim that I'm a deletionist and that all deletionists are at war with inclusionists, shouldn't you show some evidence of deletionism? Or a working definition of deletionism?

Let me give you mine. I believe that anyone who raises the trivial fact of the number of article titles or winning the fight at XFD over the most logical way to present information, then joins with other users in order to act in opposition to anyone who might express an opinion on a specific article title or a specific XFD discussion, is disruptive to Wikipedia. Insofar as these people are inclusionists or deletionists, I oppose both inclusionists and deletionists. I believe Wikipedia policy backs me in this area.

The idea that everyone who holds a different philosophy is a member of two or more warring factions and that Wikipedia is a zero-sum battle where each faction works to gain advantage over the other is poisonous. "Deletionists," to their way of thinking, is "everyone who acts in opposition to the inclusionists." But for that matter, "inclusionist" is "everyone who acts in opposition to the deletionists," to the other side. This "warring states" take on Wikipedia is harmful because it galvanizes bad actors to take bad actions because of the bad actors of the "other side", it paralyzes good actors who agree to differing degrees with one state from dealing with the bad actors of the other state, it teaches new users by example that Wikipedia is a battleground, and it derails any discussion of the excesses of the "battles" between the two sides with arguments about the rightness of the supposed cause. Ikip is an avowed holder of this warring states philosophy and has repeatedly used it as justification of his disruptive conduct, conduct which I have been focusing on for months. There is no cabal of all users who agree on things, but there are cabals of users who believe that there is a cabal of all users who disagree with them.

Ikip has cast me as one of the opposing warriors in this battlefield, but I am not. I don't want to fight article inclusion, let alone by any means necessary. (Hell, I even agree with Ikip that the Uncle-G/GNG-notability has issues that a few years of practice have started to reveal, although I doubt we'd agree on the replacement.) But neither do I much like deletionists; nothing undermines an argument like having someone obnoxious agree with you, and it's not about a higher or lower level of article inclusion but one which makes sense. Not everyone who argues to keep or delete an article or many articles or a series of articles or whatever is a member of some faction devoted to keeping/deleting articles. I am not a red/blue shirt, and I am not at war with the blue/red shirts, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the red shirts or blue shirts.

If you want me to get simplistic and separate people into groups, I think there's one group of disruptive users, the hard core -ionist cabals, both the red shirt and the blue shirt cabals. I want to see them put down their arms, take off their shirts, and join the project in a collegial way. This isn't going to happen until the bad actors reform and the good actors stop tolerating them and their conduct. Making this happen is beyond the scope of this RFAr (however much I might fervently hope). I haven't yet thought of a good way to do it other than dealing with bad actors, nor have a found a good way to deal with bad actors than relatively poor method of hitting them with the hammer when they cross the the phallically named standard for breaching the surface tension of community tolerance.

I feel I'm in opposition to a disruptive group of users, which includes the red-shirts just as it includes the blue-shirts. I find it worrying that we have users more interested in making sure that the fights between the red-shirts and blue-shirts are fair than making sure that they aren't turning Wikipedia into their battleground.

If this case were just about Ikip and me and users were asked to make closing statements, this would be mine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way, AGF and all... but 1) this is just a personal essay of your views; 2) I frankly don't have the energy at this point to pull it all out, but from all the digging on your contribs I recall no evidence of you scrapping with "deletionists", only "inclusionists", so I call shenanigans on your whole ramble about red & blue shirts; 3) this reads as a big "This was all Ikip's fault" deflection. rootology (C)(T) 06:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you don't have any evidence of my views except supposition about them from my actions, I figured I'd set the record straight. (Now, if you had ever engaged me in discussion at any point...) I haven't "scrapped" with anyone but Ikip, as he's the only one who's crossed the line of obnoxiousness lately. (I've made comments at various talk pages about A Nobody, Jack Merridew, and ThuranX, but their responses in conduct have mostly been not as antagonistic and at least somewhat promsing.) But thanks for the repetition of your "you're a red/blue-shirt, because you dared oppose a blue/red-shirt" accusation.

Yes, it is Ikip's fault that I have been critical of his conduct. I've been critical about his conduct because of his conduct, not because we are opposing warriors on some "inclusionism vs. deletionism" battlefield. My good faith is at the heart of this; I have acted to do my best to limit the disruption of a disruptive editor in good faith, and this is why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per experiences. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the case. Hobit (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per evidences. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB has a history of conflict with User:Ikip[edit]

3) AMiB and Ikip have a long, ongoing, and detailed history of interaction and opposition across multiple pages and areas.[14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. rootology/equality 17:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linked evidence alleges no timeline to support "long", nor multiple areas of contention. There was in fact one single area of contention: inappropriate canvassing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you follow your career as an admin with a career as a talking head pundit on television, and I mean that in a good way. Your defense is the most skilled empty one I've read on RFAR in some time. :) Based on the evidence, and your history of edit warring on ARS content, and various evidence linked across the /Evidence page now, this is incontrovertable. See. Your disagreement with my conclusions are noted; your stance on them has no bearing. Only the Arbitrator's does. rootology (C)(T) 13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's awfully nice of you to compliment me but your evidence of me being involved with Ikip consists of an edit analysis that includes a month and a half of involved interaction after the block and an ANI thread where you claim I'm involved and are rebuffed by multiple editors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're flat out lying now, unfortunately. Click on this link.. Then click on this link. Why would you do that? What "multiple editors" rebuffed me? Name them. rootology (C)(T) 20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC) rootology (C)(T) 20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is the ANI thread (and has one person even describing me as uninvolved even in your cherrypicked quotes), the second link is links to your edit analysis and the ANI thread, again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Black Kite (your quote), Kww ("AMIB [...] seems not to be involved with Ikip except for repeated warnings about canvassing and near-canvassing"), and Protonk ("I would hope that if you think AMiB is acting on a vendetta that you provide some evidence--evidence beyond the fact that he has brought Ikip's conduct here before and beyond vague hints at wikistance") all rebuffed your claims of involvement specifically, with a number of other editors and admins supporting my good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name every editor that defended your action against Ikip in my provided archival link, please, then. If I went to the trouble in my evidence presentation, then you may as well. Please name them, now. rootology (C)(T) 07:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This FOF is not "AMIB's block of Ikip was a good block in retrospect," a claim which is currently advanced by no one. This is "AMIB was involved in some sort of far-reaching dispute with Ikip about something or another." The fact that numerous editors demanded you offer some evidence of involvement besides the vague supposition that I was a "deletionist" and you provided none is relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's really not at the time. The burder is always on the blocking admin, and consensus at the time supported that you were involved. You cannot dispute that! The thread is archived, and consensus was: AMIB is involved. You need to name the names. Who said you weren't involved, beside yourself there? You can keep trying to redirect and change the subject, but it's a weak and transparent action. You can do better, by naming them. If you can't, admit it. Are you adult enough for such a thing? rootology (C)(T) 07:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So any admin who has ever expressed any agreement with a red-shirt cannot block a blue-shirt. If anyone accuses the admin of doing it because they are a red-shirt fellow-follower, regardless of whether the accuser has any evidence, the accuser is right and the admin must immediately prove that he is not a red-shirt and was not motivated by his red-shirt sympathies.

This is an unworkable standard, which Protonk, Kww, and Black Kite all pointed out. (This standard even prevents me from ever censuring both inclusionists and deletionists!) If you're going to accuse an admin of blocking for bad-faith reasons, then you need some sort of evidence of bad faith. Admins need to be immune to spurious accusations of bad faith or only monks can be admins.

You are making accusations. It rests on you to show, with evidence, that they are true, rather than on me to conjure evidence that your spurious accusations are false. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per observations of many discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and note that Ikip is only the most recent editor with whom AMIB has had disagreements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB made an attack page about User:Ikip[edit]

4) See: User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon.[15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I accept A Man In Black's explanation that this page was a short-lived attempt at humor. It was ill-advised, and it can be used as evidence that Ikip and A Man In Black are not best wikifriends, but it is not at the crux of the case, and I would not make it the basis for an independent finding of fact or a sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fact. rootology/equality 17:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, well, it only said "note to self: buy stamps". Poor taste, but he deleted it within half an hour. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not a fact if the word "attack" is used to describe it. See this evidence for the proper context, here. As Stifle observes, the content cannot be construed as an attack. The only thing that can really, possibly be construed as an attack is the title, and thus the links to the page, not the actual page itself. (I've carefully not made a link to the page in the evidence.)

  It's worth noting that Rootology's own principle of Equality is marked by its absence, here. Administrators and non-administrators alike have freely made that very same link, including Rootology xyrself, in this edit, as well as A Nobody, Jack Merridew, Pablomismo, and Ikip (see the aforementioned evidence). Pablomismo has even made a similar page, with vastly more content.

  The original page was deleted within minutes; A Man In Black never linked to it again; others brought it up three months later; and A Man In Black has presented explanations of the actual point that xe was making, in the context of the original discussion, three times. It's hard to construe it as an attack on Ikip in context, although easy when presented entirely out of context, as Rootology and A Nobody have presented it. It was a badly-chosen humorous example, that A Man In Black xyrself described as unsatisfactory, that xe swiftly used xyr own administrator tools to remove. If it hadn't been turned from mole-hill into mountain by others, some several months afterwards, it would have been long-forgotten, as a rapidly-self-corrected lapse in judgement, by now. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse/support. None of us should make any pages against other editors in our userspace, even in jest. If we refer to others in our userspce, we should do so only in a manner that is complimentary of them a la User:A_Nobody#Words_of_wisdom_written_by_wise_Wikipedians. We should never use userspace to mock fellow editors, nor should we allow ourselves to get that worked up over editing here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Referring to that page as an "attack page" is encouraging others to "get worked up over editing here". pablo_hablo. 05:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is encouraging others to not use userspace to joke about other editors. We should be here to create articles after all or userspace pages that help us in contributing to articles and future articles. We should not be here to play games. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not doing that at all. It is a mischaracterisation of the page, and it was done after the page was deleted. Editors who did not see the content would tend to assume, from the references to it as an attack page, that that is a correct description. pablo_hablo. 05:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How does making it improve Wikipedia? How could it have been a good idea? Similarly, how does User:Pablomismo/Let's give A Man In Black a wedgie and put him in a sack and tow it through a cow pasture! better Wikipedia? What articles are improved as a result? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Of itself, it has no effect whatsoever, good or bad, on Wikipedia. Misdescribing it as an "attack page" (especially after it has been deleted) has a larger effect. pablo_hablo. 19:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, it has no constructive effect and as such is an unconstructive use of Wikipedia servers. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors should not make attack pages against other editors, but especially not admins, who are supposed to demonstrate persistently good judgment and civility. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is not an attack page, it is a bad enough joke(as AMIB self admitting it is not as funny as s/he thinks it would be) and involves enough insulting value in it against Ikip. People should really avoid doing so, since no matter how much good faith is place onto this, it is still an uncivilized action. AMIB might have self deleted it, but there are records and on top of that, deleting a page after creating it as a joke is well evidence of him abusing admin powers. At least no one can do so without the admin power and the page created would not be able to be deleted unless after a review of an admin in the speedy delete process, which could lead to many complications and might simply result a warning or even a block. MythSearcher^talk 06:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a fact. How absurd. Read the entire contents of the page. I'll undelete them if that isn't possible for some people. And, as myth searcher says above, if it is a bad joke, people should avoid doing it. How much is one person to be pilloried for a page they created, never linked to and then DELETED themselves after vocalizing that it was probably a bad idea. Hell, I've got draft messages that would get me thrown out for violating CIVIL, we I to have sent them to someone. Should I be deysopped for that? Protonk (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, AMIB linked to the page once, all other links to it, (by other editors and admins) including those mischaracterising it as an "attack" page, were made after it was deleted. pablo_hablo. 20:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake. It is still about as much of an attack page as User:Protonk/stop. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a silly exaggeration. A biting wisecrack, but not an attack -- calling it an "attack page" dilutes the understanding of what constitutes an "attack." AMiB tried for a chortle, decided it wasn't all that funny (and perhaps realized someone on the fringe might interpret as an attack, or look for an excuse to feel put upon) and deleted it. --EEMIV (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB has flagrantly misrepresented his involved status as an admin[edit]

5) After he blocked Ikip, AMiB repeatedly presented himself as "uninvolved", which is patently not true.[16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. rootology/equality 17:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion above is relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes there are borderline cases which have been discussed elsewhere and required clarification of what "uninvolved" is. This was definitely not one of those cases. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as they are clearly opponents. And whether or not it takes two to tango, Ikip cannot block A Man In Black. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support One cannot have months of disagreements with an editor and then claim to be uninvolved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB has used his tools inappropriately as an admin[edit]

6) AMiB, despite being deeply involved with Ikip, blocked him, and also twice deleted a template that Ikip had created.[17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. rootology/equality 17:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of deep involvement as of the blocking, and the template was created with stated bad faith reasons. The second deletion was reversed minutes later, by me, when Ikip stated that he had created the template for other reasons, although it was never used for anything other than making a point by demonstration. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as the admin board thread seemed to suggest as much consensus opposed to the block. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the Ikip block stands as a perfect example of when an involved Admin should have stepped back and gotten a univolved opinion, rather that even allowing a perception of impropriety. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB has abused WP:SOCK and admin IP-exempt[edit]

7.1) Per the partial evidence that can be disclosed by the Arbitration Committee, AMiB has abusively edited Wikipedia under more than one identity and has misused the standard Administrator IP-exempt functionality to help facilitate that.[18]

7.2) Per the partial evidence that can be disclosed by the Arbitration Committee, AMiB has abusively edited Wikipedia under more than one identity.[19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Administrative accounts are exempt from IPBE, per the policy, so he could have moved right from IP editing to account editing with no difficulty. The private evidence shows a shift from a blocked IP to AMIB using his account. He has responded to this in his evidence though, so if it is a violation then it will be added into the proposed decision. Wizardman 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP was blocked anon. only after checking the log. Wizardman 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fact. rootology/equality 01:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update with the new disclosures by the Arbcom to 7.2. rootology/equality 21:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Special:UserRights/A Man In Black does not list that account as currently having the IP block exemption right, or ever having had it. That account's user rights log shows that it has not been used to grant the the IP block exemption right (or indeed any right) to any other account. Uncle G (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins can edit even if their IP is blocked. I have no idea how far I can go into this, but my read of the situation is that AMiB was doing bad things as his IPs, not logged in, got blocked, and then took advantage of the fact his Admin account could freely continue on it's way. That is clear abuse of "special admin tools". If you want any more information, you need to take it up with the Arbcom or ask A Man In Black if more info can be disclosed. rootology/equality 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the IP was blocked anon only (per Wizardman and Mbisanz), any old user could have logged in and continued editing, so FoF's saying that AMIB abused admin IPblock exemption should probably be withdrawn. – Steel 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The obvious question now is - given that there was no abuse of admin privs here, does one "tetchy comment" rise to the level of an Arbcom finding? Calling it "abusive sock puppetry" is a bit of a stretch too if AMIB is right about the blocking admin's intent. – Steel 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless AMIB is willing to disclose the edit, who knows? rootology/equality 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept on good faith that this is significant enough to be included while accepting ArbCom's decision not to disclose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB is considered an involved Admin to Ikip and the ARS[edit]

8) Due to his deep history of involvement with Ikip[20][21][22][23] and the ARS[24], A Man In Black cannot be reasonably considered an uninvolved Administrator[25][26] with respect to use of any administrative actions involving either Ikip, or the ARS, in line with repeated previous similar findings by the Arbitration Committee in previous cases.[27]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact, even more simply put. rootology/equality 00:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to establish that I am now involved (which it does and I don't dispute)? If so, why is it being used to claim that I was involved on April 26th, as below? Where is the evidence that I was involved when I blocked Ikip? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used the same reference and anchor links in both. As far as I know, that's quite fine. You can reply and argue the weight of involvement and continue on with that, but I am now satisfied that to any non-partisan, neutral observers, that you're well past the established weight and "line" that Arbcom judges involvement against and historically always has, and my various and sundry links and notes in my Evidence section fully demonstrate that you were involved by communal norms (but probably not your norms, which are always secondary to community ones) when you blocked Ikip, and deleted his template. I can appreciate your attempting to argue it down--you're facing an RFAR--but repeating an extra time that you weren't involved won't change the fact that based on how we've always sanely gauged this and based on how the AC has gauged this for years... you were and are still involved. rootology/equality 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating your effort to confuse what I've done in May with the situation in April is the problem. The only thing you've linked that alleges that I was involved with Ikip in April is this entire discussion, where Abd, Protonk, and Kww speak strongly against this standard of involvement. I don't know what FOF I'm supposed to challenge to challenge this unsupported conclusion, nor can I detangle the web to figure out where on earth you supported it.

Kww asked you for evidence that I was deeply entangled with Ikip in April in that very same thread. You provided none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I consider AMIB's interpretations of involvement, based on his above response, still invalid, especially per the immediately below section that shows AMIB is/was 101% involved to Ikip & ARS per all the Arbcom precedents and standards on the matter over the years. If the standards have been good enough in all the previous Arbcoms over the year, they are good enough here. Ignorance of the present standards, thresholds, and policies is never an excuse if you cause negative issues, and we admins are expected to know this stuff. rootology (C)(T) 18:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence I was involved in a dispute in April. No evidence of a specific content dispute. Citing an unwritten policy backed by no community consensus. This falls apart at each step. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, and the Arbs will determine as they always have, though as I said before I do not fault your stance, as your tools are on the line for your misuse of them and your egregious block history since Adminship. "April" has nothing to do with anything, your involvement stretches back across months[28][29][30] and per prior Arbcom decisions--in fact on just about the entire historical record of all such Arbcom findings going back several years--you are the literal textbook definition of involved, see here. You may of course reply again, but the "last word" cannot sway history, precedent, and the way we do things. rootology (C)(T) 23:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You strongly overstate your case, Rootology. AMIB and Ikip certainly have and have had a common locus of interest, but before April, I don't think it rose to a standard where WP:INVOLVED could reasonably have been invoked.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He'd made a joke/attack (you pick) page about Ikip in January. I don't think one would generally do that with respect to someone you aren't involved with. Was he involved in April? I've not looked closely. But he certainly had been involved with him recently and one could reasonably suspect that would color future interactions. ... if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be substantively alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't about Ikip; it used the absurdity of mailing someone to the moon as an example of something impractical, in a discussion with Ikip. It wouldn't have been substantially different if it had been me, Phil Sandifer, TTN, or Randomran. (Probably would have funnier if it had been me, TBH.) We disagreed on a single speculative point while agreeing to reject a guideline proposal. It's been posted, repeatedly, as some sort of evidence of malfeasance, but it was never substantially an attack on Ikip, was part of an ongoing and largely amicable discussion, one which was resolved more or less by us both neglecting it for its triviality. Does disagreement about the speculative results of what we agreed was a doomed proposal constitute some sort of content dispute? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, flipping this situation around - as one on the opposite side of the debate to many, eg TTN, EEMIV, Kww, you, take your pick - as far as I can recall, I have not been in a one to one dispute as such with many, but would consider that any admin action I pulled on one would be interpreted as involved by deletion-minded crew, and I would agree with them. By your definition, I should be okay to block, hypothetically, EEMIV or ThuranX for incivility, right? ('cos I wouldn't) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should be okay. ThuranX especially. This idea that nobody should ever be allowed to act on anyone they might possibly slightly dislike is why people are allowed to be uncivil in these contentious debates: nobody wants to wade in because it's a huge uncivil mess, and anybody who's actually there is going to face partisans sympathetic to the blocked claiming that it was politically motivated no matter how much of an uncivil jerk the blocked person was. The partisans here are the ones in the wrong, not the blocking admin. (This is not the only cause of this paralysis, but I think it's one of the chief ones.)

This is just one of the reasons this idea of "warring factions" is poisonous: it galvanizes bad actors and paralyzes good actors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per evidence of disputed history. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per evidences. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB is considered an involved Admin to Ikip and the ARS per Arbcom past decisions[edit]

9) A Man In Black's level of involvement with Ikip[31][32][33][34] & the ARS[35] is consistently in line with the historical Arbcom definitions and findings of what is considered an "involved Administrator".[36]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. Some admins in previous findings could even be said to be less involved relative to AMiB's involvement here. Based on this, and how the AC has historically weighed the burden and definition of involvement, I can't see how this is anything but factual. rootology/equality 00:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily material; the evidence clearly exists that I'm involved with Ikip now, but I've repeatedly, explicitly stated that I wouldn't be blocking (or whatever) him now. Still no evidence of involvement at the time of the block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per extensive observations of this dispute that has been a terrible distraction from efforts to rescue articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per pre-block evidences. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB has a history of edit warring as an Admin[edit]

10) A Man In Black has a long history of edit warring as an Administrator, which is unacceptable. This includes 12 blocks as an admin[37], and heavy edit warring in 2009[38] and earlier[39].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. rootology/equality 00:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linked evidence for "heavy edit warring in 2009" alleges a single edit war in 2009. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and given your destructive edit history of edit warring for years, an irrelevant observation by you meant tonally, politically, and unhelpfully to downplay this. Added a link to Ikip's additional evidence. Between all of this plus your shameful block record, we're done on this point. It is incontestable and a guilty verdict with an emphasis on the G. rootology (C)(T) 13:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're slip-sliding around and overstating your claims. First I am "heav[il]y edit warring in 2009". I respond that I got wrapped up in a multilateral edit war on a page that was intended to provoke, and that I had already corrected this conduct myself. So you point to...evidence about 2007? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per block log. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per findings of fact. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

(In progress, being edited, pending final links on Evidence page) 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.

AMiB is placed on 1RR per week indefinitely[edit]

1) Given his long history of edit warring, AMiB is placed on 1RR per week indefinitely.[40] Should AMiB violate this, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. After one year, he may appeal to the Committee to have this restriction lifted. Per finding of fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

First choice on reverting restrictions. Simple, straightforward, forces you to the talk page. If your points aren't met with consensus or support, this forces the party to live with it like the rest of us already have to. rootology/equality 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+FOF. rootology/equality 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premature. I would have been amenable to discussion about this, had Rootology brought it up on my talk page or in an RFC. I had previously expressed interest in such criticism (as linked in my evidence). Arbcom is not the first step for such censure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin, you're held to higher standards, and have been running about immaturely edit warring for years. Time's up. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to imply that you're more interested in making an example of me for your "Equality" proposal than interacting with me as a peer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, as Arbcom has held admins to higher standards than everyone else this past year. Do you feel the Arbcom has been wrong in this? rootology (C)(T) 19:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see your good-faith effort to treat with me without immediate threats. "Ah hah, but arbcom will make good on my threats!" isn't justification for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, your continued circular and empty justifications of defense only further galvanize the perception that both in actions, history of actions, communications skills, willingness to accept responsibility for your actions, and in personality, that you are not the sort of person that needs to be an admin. I'll ask again. Arbcom has held admins to higher standards than everyone else this past year. Do you feel the Arbcom has been wrong in this? rootology (C)(T) 20:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. What I do know is that the standards that you've linked aren't relevant, due to lack of evidence. If arbcom is going to deadmin me for recanted bad behavior in 2007, then they're going to deadmin me for recanted bad behavior in 2007. I've made my explanations and apologies, I've outlined what I've changed since then and what I've been doing in the meantime, and I've been open to further discussion or escalation if necessary. I'm not sure what else arbcom would expect of me.

This tactic of demanding answers to irrelevant questions in order to distract from salient criticism is tiresome and unproductive. Rather than suggesting I make any change in my conduct, even suggesting a specific and rigid course of doing so, you've jumped all the way to demanding that arbcom enforce such a change, with no attempt to treat with me and in spite of specific evidence that I would have been open to such overtures. Not only have you failed to assume good faith and discuss things with me, you've continued insisting on my bad faith when presented specific evidence to the contrary. This is vastly premature. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What bad faith, exactly, have I expressed? You have four years of edit warring and blocking history. Years. What did you recant for "bad behavior" in 2007? That you would not edit war again? Because I see valid blocks in September 2008 (24 hours), February 2009 (1 week) and May 2009 (9 days) all for edit warring, and still more that you managed to avoid due to how the 3RR reports played out (see evidence). It's not hard to not edit war. You simply must swallow your pride wholly... and simply not edit war. I despise this process, and hate being in RFAR, and the very last thing I would do is bring anything here prematurely, unless I 100% believed in the need for it. Your consistent attitude of being "right", even in regards to your disruptive history, and attempting to downplay it, have unfortunately convinced me that you are here to edit war, enforce your own POV via edit warring, and your faith in consensus is limited to only when that consensus agrees with your view. Again, as I said before, the last word is meaningless, but you may have it at this point. If you hadn't expressed repeated and constant bad faith via your edit warring, we wouldn't even be here. I urge you, however this turns out, to not edit war again, or you're on the short road to an indefinite ban if it likely continues, to be honest. rootology (C)(T) 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In February I edit warred, realized I was edit warring on my own, dropped the dispute, and was blocked when I made a different and undisputed edit that had been lost in the edit war. In May I was one of a half-dozen editors edit warring, over a page made specifically to provoke, by a user who has written a guide on edit warring and provoking users in order to discredit them. I had already conceded the point and moved onto a more productive and less confrontational venue when I was blocked, a block which has since been described as punitive and pointless.

But that's a distraction from my (still unanswered) point. You cannot be sure that simply talking to me wouldn't have gotten you the satisfaction and change you desired when you never even bothered to try. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support per pretty clear and extensive history of edit-warring, perhaps the most blocks for it that I have seen for any admin. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per block log. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB is topic-banned from User:Ikip[edit]

2) Broadly construed, AMiB may not contact, interact with, nor comment on in any capacity, from article space to project space, about Ikip, except for business directly related to the Arbitration Committee and appeals to or from this case, cf Everyking & Sandifer. Indefinite. Per Finding of fact, and additional finding of fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

AMiB gets into a preponderance of trouble when interacting with Ikip, from edit warring to admin actions. This will be the best for the sanity of the community. Keeping AMiB from interacting with Ikip will go a long way to immediately eliminating any conflict. rootology/equality 18:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+FOFs. rootology/equality 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, this should render the other remedies unnecessary. — CharlotteWebb 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about your reply and trying to think about what would happen if AMiB were topic banned from Ikip, but not the ARS? That's where they often encountered each other. rootology/equality 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as his involvement with Ikip is a central concern in this case. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one sounds a little unreasonable, actually. It is only a remedy to the most recent recorded problem, not a remedy to all of his/her actions, and is quite hard to perform. Say for example, Ikip commented on something, another third party commented on Ikip's comment, then AMIB can simply comment on the third party instead of Ikip. Or AMIB can simply reply anyone supporting Ikip. On the other hand, if assuming bad faith,(just to list all possibilities) Ikip can be used for stopping AMIB in any action(whether Ikip intentionally do so or not or is simply requested by someone else to do so.), no matter AMIB is correct or not. A single edit on an article by Ikip would stop AMIB in editing the page. MythSearcher^talk 06:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as I see no good coming from their interactions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per findings of fact. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB is topic-banned from Article Rescue Squadron[edit]

3) Broadly construed, AMiB may not contact, interact with, nor comment on in any capacity, from article space to project space, about the Article Rescue Squadron, except for business directly related to the Arbitration Committee and appeals to or from this case, cf Everyking & Sandifer. Indefinite. Per Finding of fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

AMiB gets into a preponderance of trouble when interacting with anything to do with the ARS, from edit warring to admin actions. This will be the best for the sanity of the community. Keeping AMiB from interacting with this area will go a long way to immediately eliminating any conflict. rootology/equality 18:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+FOF link. rootology/equality 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that there is disruption that this will prevent? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you overlooked the edit that linked to the finding of fact which directly linked to the evidence, and the 12th community-endorsed 9-day block you just received for edit warring on ARS-related pages? rootology/equality 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That FOF links to an evidence post that suggests that I am deeply involved in a vaguely defined debate. Being involved in a debate isn't disruption. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I cannot support this enough. AMIB has a long history of edit warring not for weeks, not for months but for years. See MalikCarr's section were AMIB edit warred for years over certain images and deleting other editors contributions. Even as this arbcom is ongoing, AMIB is still attempting to delete an image and edit war on MSN-02 Zeong:

File:Msn-02_Perfect_Zeong.jpgAMIB deletes image repeatedlyJune 1st, 2009, adds review tagJune 4, 2009 removes image from article (alleges that Malik Carr agreed to this deletion) Non-free content review Similar to AMIB block of me, AMIB blocked Jtrainor and Malik Carr over this dispute. In which another uninvolved editor said "This is nothing more than a content dispute hiding behind a claim of copyright violation."[41]

See also the ongoing argument over Logo galleries in TV station articles, in which an editor complains, "It is the belief of myself and other concerned editors that you are abusing your administrative powers..."[42] an edit war which has begun again after last year.

Before long AMIB will get into four 3RR's again, and when that doesn't work, two hours later attempt to delete ARS again. (see the timeline of this edit war which led to AMIB being blocked for 9 days in MalikCarr's section) Because of AMIB of WP:BATTLE mentality and rich history of abuse of administrative authority, this edit war on ARS will continue for years more if this is not enacted.Ikip (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as the MfD was clearly pointed; however, I do encourage A Man In Black to work on rescuing articles, i.e. adding references to them and as such to have grounds for a future appeal by say bringing some articles to DYK or Good Status in the meantime. Or put simply to encourage him to focus on improving content rather than perpetuating these various conflicts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I found his interactions on the talk page to be much needed constructive criticism. ThemFromSpace 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive criticism?

Deleted other editors contributrions on the page repeatedly.

Edit warred 4 times with 5 editors (in which AMIB has a rich history of doing, edit warring for years),

...then two hours, after violating 3RR, put the ARS wikiproject up for deletion? (see MalikCarr's section)

A MfD in which, BTW, you used AMIB's Blow it up and start over article to justify Article Rescue Squadron deletion, continuing a long history of extreme deletionism views and WP:BATTLE mentality which both you and AMIB share.

Sounds really "constructive" and as plausible as you painting AMIB as a victim, despite admitting that his block of me was "not justified" in your evidence section. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is illustrative. Ikip has identified Themfromspace as agreeing with me on some point, and has immediately made accusations that Themfromspace and I are of a faction and thus TFS is acting in bad faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have told Ikip times in the past to stop assuming bad faith on my part. I am only trying to see that our guidelines and policies are upheld. ThemFromSpace 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per findings of fact. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB is topic-banned from our notability issues[edit]

4) Broadly construed, AMiB may not edit articles, comment, interact with, nor comment on in any capacity, from article space to project space, about issues related to WP:Notability, or any derivative guidelines, policies, or discussions, except for business directly related to the Arbitration Committee and appeals to or from this case, cf Everyking & Sandifer. Indefinite. Per Finding of fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

AMiB gets into a preponderance of trouble when interacting with anything to do with the concept and policies governing Notability, from edit warring to admin actions. This will be the best for the sanity of the community. Keeping AMiB from interacting with this area will go a long way to immediately eliminating any conflict. This would be the broadest of the three restrictions. rootology/equality 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added FOF link. rootology/equality 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Whilst there is evidence, that A Man In Black freely acknowledges, of edit warring at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ, this proposed remedy requires, as a pre-requisite, since it is explicitly based upon the assumption of such a fact, a finding of fact that there was edit warring on other pages. There's no such finding of fact above, and not even any evidence presented to support any such finding. There's no evidence in the block log, which shows only 3 blocks in the past 18 months, one of which was for the FAQ, and the other two of which were for articles. Where's the supporting evidence, and finding of fact, that should precede this remedy? Uncle G (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added, and linked back from FOF to the evidence as well. Thank you for catching that technical omission! rootology/equality 23:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's still an omission. The evidence presented just shows numbers of edits. It doesn't show edit warring or mis-use of any administrator tool. Currently, you are proposing a remedy based on the mere fact that an editor is simply a talk page discussion participant, who has worked on a proposed guideline. Uncle G (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see anything on the evidence page indicating disruptive editing at the assorted notability-related pages -- merely evidence of participation. The closest is a claim of edit warring over the Gundam article, but an issue of revert-warring seems addressed in the 1RR thing proposed above -- it doesn't play into the conversations about notability on those notability discussion pages. --EEMIV (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is much too large of a scope. ThemFromSpace 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per findings of fact. His personal interpretation of WP:N often turn AfDs into a bit of contention diff. Pushing WP:CIV to the breaking point when using personal POV is not helpful the building of a comprehensive encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB is desysopped[edit]

5) For his misuse of the administrator tools[43]; his misrepresentation[44] of "involved" status to push, enflame, and enhance conflicts[45]; for abusive sock puppetry and for abuse of the Administrative IP-exempt function[46], and for his ongoing history of edit warring blocks after his 2005 RFA[47], AMiB is desysopped. He may reapply for the tools at any time after the RFAR's conclusion via the standard community-controlled process such as WP:RFA only.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would like to ask Rootology to reevaluate whether he still supports this remedy in light of A Man in Black's recent evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Admins have been desysopped for far less. I am in principle against the AC or Jimbo returning +extra bits without community approval, once they've been taken away for misbehavior or malfeasance. rootology/equality 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This proposal is in part dependent explicitly on evidence we are waiting on the Arbitration Committee to release. rootology/equality 19:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Updated with the clearance to disclose that A Man In Black has been engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, including use of the Administrative IP auto-exempt function.[48]. I do not myself know the specifics beyond that, and the Arbs can disclose more[49] if they think it's prudent. rootology/equality 01:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB on the Evidence page seems to have issues with the presentation (and sourcing?) of his abusive sockpuppetry, which I have demonstrably rejected here. rootology/equality 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to NYB: I've been thinking actually about drafting a 5.1, to be honest, and the wording on it. I was drafting this desysop proposal even before I first learned fragments of the hidden evidence. Even if he didn't use admin tools to evade a block, he still has been blocked repeatedly, 12 times since getting admin status, plus his involved use of tools on Ikip, leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. That is not how admins are to act. rootology/equality 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I count one bad block, which at face value sounds like a really slow month. The rest is just posturing. Unless there is something to indicate a sustained pattern of poor "adminning" this seems overly harsh. — CharlotteWebb 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin status and trust is not based solely on misuse of the admin tools. He also used tools against Ikip in deleting that template, and his long abusive history of edit warring comes into play. Admins have been desysopped for far less than this. rootology/equality 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whom? — CharlotteWebb 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get any further in this, there is additional evidence (the bit multiple arbs mentioned on the acceptance) that is apparently pretty damning stuff. That plays a role as well in my desysop proposal, but I can't post it till they disclose it in some form. Keep again in mind--12 blocks since he passed RFA. Off the top of my head, though: Sade, SlimVirgin, Felonious Monk, Bedford, Tango. rootology/equality 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you Tango as that case lacked any sustained pattern of bad "administrating" (to paraphrase one of the other individuals), and that hasn't been established here either. I'd recommend not proposing extreme measures based on yet-to-be-seen evidence. — CharlotteWebb 19:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise there's precedent for this, but I don't really see justification from the evidence (so far). Stifle (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my evidence is out now, for the time being. rootology/equality 01:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most reasonable proposal so far. All others are making AMIB having less rights than normal users but does not stop him/her from continual abuse of admin power. desysop him/her, then we will see his/her behaviour from that on, if he improved, then everything is fine, if not, let him/her go through the warning and blcking process like normal users. MythSearcher^talk 06:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding :Comment for AMIB for his reply in the Evidence page Dispute against 4 people, with AMIB input having no consensus. The sources given are improved on every edit until everything is stated clearly, all to the specification of WP:V and WP:RS. The worst thing on them might only be not using the citation template. AMIB kept reverting sources that are very well listed, including magazine sources and an official fire department website source stating they are vague, yet everything is listed for AMIB and AMIB only, since no one else ever questioned the original sources, which are basically already listing the magazine names and issue number or date, yet AMIB simply reverting or deleting them and replace them with tags making it look like no one ever added sources. AMIB's argument? they are what ? all Bandai and SRW related? Totally nonsense. There are tons of sources that included the publishing company and writer, one is even an interview from a science foundation, and one is a DVD taking about how the anime influenced the real life industry, instead of AMIB's so call vague attribution to a speaker claim. Thank you for the display of your own stubbornness, AMIB, for 7 whole months(and longer for the Gundam article), still wanting to show that your WP:POINT campaign, or I should say, crusade? I have nothing else to add to the argument, and I believe other admins would be much more reasonable than AMIB. MythSearcher^talk 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggestIng I was disruptive because my argument didn't find consensus and because I made edits and talk page comments in support of my argument. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying you are disruptive because you made edits that are against consensus then jump to edits and edits comments that are totally not reflecting what the article status in and show heavily representation of you trying to show you WP:POINT that you are right and others are wrong no matter how the consensus is. You failed to try to communicate with the majority of people who are reverting your edits, and simply move to make other edits to the article instead of trying to talk it out in the talk page. Also you kept making false claims in the edit comment. For the evidence I have provided in the evidence page, both pages shows that you kept claiming the sources as primary or heavily related to the article, yet the sources show a wide range of diverse publications instead. The edits you made are actually either kept reverting the tags and/or redirecting the page, after 3RR with some editors of the page disagree with your actions. MythSearcher^talk 14:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what WP:POINT means (it means to not make a point by demonstration when you can instead explain it). As for the content disputes, the "majority of the people who were reverting my edits" were, um, you. At Real Robot I edited the page about five times over two and a half months' worth of discussion with you, the only other editor to both disagree with my edits. At Gundam (mobile suit); I made a significant number of productive edits to the page, during which your contributions were demanding that I stop adding fact tags to badly-sourced factual claims and accusing me of not reading the article.

Neither of these are administrative actions, and the idea that I was uncommunicative about these edits is silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While these are not directly related to you abusing admin power, other Gundam related edit wars are, and the Gundam (mobile suit) war actually is involves one of the editors you had edit war with and banned in the same series of events. In Real Robot, your argument was kept as "A term limited to SRW, redirecting there" from your first edit there, while I have already added a magazine source, you accused the page to be "no reliable sources establishing use of this term outside of SRW and fansites", which is introducing a Gundam novel using the term, thus your edit comment is not correct. However, you kept claiming there are no secondary sources in this edit, totally ignoring the fact that there are independent magazine sources, and in this edit, although I have already added in much more sources including famous Japanese magazines online version with full text talking about the genre, and a third party organization's summary of the Robot meta genre as a whole, along with the nice o' Japanese released DVD relating real robot anime with real-life robots, all NOT by Sunrise and SRW developers, you still claim We still don't have any reliable sources (a Japanese WP scraper doesn't count) that anyone but Sunrise or the SRW developers (who are Sunrise licensees) consider this a genre. and simply redirected the page. I see nothing about you trying to discuss with me since you never even read my edit comments stating very clearly telling you that the sources are indeed from third party magazines. The last of your edits have totally given up giving useful comments, you simply ignore everything and simply redirect the page asking others to find a better redirect target, with no intention of communication. At the time of your last edit, the article already have an intensive interview and talk record of a famous director of the genre, and you simply ignored it and claim it to be not notable. I see no other excuses other then you making your point about the article is not notable since you claim so from the very beginning. I don't want to go for every single detail on the Gundam (mobile suit) article as well, with you having edit warring with 3 users and then tagging the article with tags while reverting and removing sources added. fact tags on obvious pictures showing no common sense. You say that there could be a model mistaken with this one, yet you never give any possible and reasonable example for that. On this edit, you simply asked for a source for another source, all the other fact tags are basically as I have said in the edit summary, it is in the article, it is just not in the footnotes, which is a fine example of how you not read the article while engaging in edit warring. The badly sourced claim you kept saying is actually the fire department using it as a poster, where on the official site linked in the image page, showed clearly the information you asked for. MythSearcher^talk 14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of justification of why you were right in the content dispute. There's really no need, Real Robot has been sitting on your version for six months. Instead, where's the disruption? Five edits over two months, accompanied with two months of discussion.

As for Gundam (mobile suit), you have two disputes. One is over {{fact}} tags, with lots of you accusing me of not reading the article and demanding that I prove that things I tag with {{fact}} aren't true. This doesn't rise to an edit war. The second is over a sizable list of "variants," and it doesn't rise to an edit war either. There are lots of de novo edits to the article. Jtrainor is only involved here to protect the list of variants, he doesn't edit war with me, and he eventually removes the list himself. The closest thing to an edit war he and I get into is he reverts my removal of the list and some of my wording changes, and I go back to replace the wording changes.

I know I'm banging this drum a lot here, but this is another example why RFAr isn't the first stop. If you had felt the need to escalate this dispute, RFC would have gotten you much more-productive results, either a user RFC on my conduct or an article RFC on the various issues. Instead, it's "I was in a dispute with this user, off with his head!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do notice I am stating the view that you are not being a role model of conduct as an admin should be with these evidences, no? In Real Robot, it is in fact an edit war with you trying to redirect the page, and you claim to have discussion yet I see none. Most of the communication I receive is me saying something with no response from you but opposing actions and your replies in the page history you provided shows that even if you did reply in words, they are very not up to date with the most recent changes of the artcile, and I have to repeatly say the same thing to tell you you are reverting to your versions claiming things otherwise. On Gundam (mobile suit), the edit war is in fact started from the part of list of weapons where a 3RR then followed with fact tags addition and removal. I am not even trying to claim I am right here, I have even self admitted that I am also wrong in performing edit warring with you. I am simply stating you action you claim moving to more useful stuff is actually creating more dispute in an article. Yes, this is not a first stop, but since someone started it, I might as well give my input on this. Like I said in the evidence page, in the very beginning of my comments, you are usually helpful when you are not acting as an admin, but if most people look into you as a role model of conduct in wikipedia, we will be in great trouble. The best solution seems to be having you as a normal editor while we can see if you can actually perform the improved actions you claimed you can do now before other think about if you should be an admin again. MythSearcher^talk 05:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made five edits to Real Robot, and there's two months of discussion on my talk. There's just no edit war there, and there's no lack of communication. There's no administrative action, no hint of administrative action, no misconduct from any party, and just plain nothing other than a dispute. Administrators are editors. They get in disputes. I daresay that every single person here, editor, admin, arb, anon, or whatever, has been in a content dispute before, and if they were as all as low-key as Real Robot then Wikipedia would be quite well off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your idea of communication is like the one in Real Robot, then we have a problem. 1st edit you did is redirect, 5th edit you did is still, redirect. Your talk page you used the same reasoning from the start to the end, it seems like useless no matter what I say, all I get back is the same reasoning disregarding my commments. MythSearcher^talk 08:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as there is clearly enough controversy over a couple of blocks and general behavior as an administrator. I recommend a reconfirmation RfA to get a wider community wide thought here. So, yes, ArbCom should desysop so that a second RfA can take place to get the community's thoughts as a whole. If after a new RfA, the community believes he should be an administrator, okay, if not, then many articles can use help being improved, so not being an admin does not equal, not being able to help improve Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Seems a bit harsh, but just a weak oppose as Ive only encountered AMiB on the ARS page and his MfD. Hes certainly over persistent but at least hes funny and well reasoned with it, would seem a shame if he became disaffected and left the project entirely. Id prefer some or all of the above sanctions to keep him away from ARS and Ikip. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per findings of fact. Tools not used or tools abused are tools not needed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB is desysopped (2)[edit]

6) For his misuse of the administrator tools[50]; his misrepresentation of "involved" status to push, enflame, and enhance conflicts with Ikip[51]; for abusive sock puppetry(7.2), for his ongoing history of edit warring blocks after his 2005 RFA[52][53], and for his pattern of edit warring in 2009[54], AMiB is desysopped for disruption[55] and behavior unbecoming an administrator. He may reapply for the tools at any time after the RFAR's conclusion via the standard community-controlled process such as WP:RFA only.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Revised proposal. rootology/equality 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons here are that I was involved with Ikip at the time of the block (alleged by Rootology but not backed by any diffs), that I misrepresented this involved status (not backed by diffs except those of Rootology claiming I was involved in April after the block), that I have a history of edit warring (not in dispute), that I edit warred heavily in 2009 (not supported by the linked evidence, and supported by a single edit war I had already conceded and looked for alternative and more productive outlets).

So, in short, this is a proposal that I be desysopped for edit warring two years ago, and for a multilateral edit war I unwisely entered into and wisely exited without any prompting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short, you've been edit warring for years (you cannot deny or minimize this, nor that you have a historic 'problem' with that--your block record is proof enough) straight through to THIS year per the evidence, and per your fictional take that you're uninvolved--you can say "only per Rootology" another dozen times, but it's a lie given I've dissected and destroyed your assertation by even linking back to the thread where you blocked Ikip, which had consensus you were involved. Your rejection of that consensus of involvement is exactly like your repeated childish edit warring. Unless you agree with a consensus, you reject it, which is not your right. You, sir, are a poor administrator, and unfit to be one any further. rootology (C)(T) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "dissection" links to the same overlapping edits and ANI where you claimed I was involved. Your evidence about edit warring overstates the case, using evidence in 2007 as proof of "heavy edit warring in 2009". I got suckered by a page intended to provoke, posted by someone who long had a guide to provoking 3RR violations. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are refusing to accept responsibility for your actions. Is your block record the block record of an Administrator in good standing, considering every block came AFTER adminship? Do you take full responsibility for all your blocks? rootology (C)(T) 19:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing your overstated accusations and confused evidence isn't refusing to accept responsibility. Taking responsibility doesn't involve conceding your overblown accusations as fact; it involves amending my conduct and taking material lessons from my mistakes, which I believe I have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support due to clear and overwhelming evidence and it is probably a good thing to have occasional recalls and reonconfirmations anyway. After all, in just about any "job" "employees" come up for review sooner or later. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per overwhelming evidence. Jtrainor (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as currently worded as several of the points aren't valid. The sock puppet allegation is by far the most serious and any sanction should reflect this. ThemFromSpace 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree with Rootology comments above. This is the record of someone unfit to be an administrator. Dream Focus 09:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrative behavior[edit]

2) Because of their position of trust in the community, administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-administrators.[56]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support as we should look to them as experienced leaders of sorts. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Administrators are hoped to represent the best of Wikipedia. Editors look to them as an example. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Socking[edit]

1) A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has used multiple identities in an abusive manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I didn't disrupt any discussion. I said a jerky thing in an unaccountable way and didn't own up to it. If it hadn't been on an anonymous IP and arisen the natural suspicion than any IP draws, it wouldn't have been noticed at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evasion[edit]

2) A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has used the IP block exemption function of his administrative account to evade a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I went back and re-checked the block log on request, it had the entry "(anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled)", which means it would probably be better to characterize it as abuse by block evasion than abuse by administrative block evasion. MBisanz ^talk 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Desysopped[edit]

1) For various policy violations, A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped. A Man In Black may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support per my reasoning above, i.e. clearly there is controversy and it should go back to the community as a whole after this case to see what the community thinks. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too support a Desysop. Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is more acceptable than the above desysop measures, provided the concerns of sockpuppetry are valid. ThemFromSpace 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support desysopped. Dream Focus 09:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tools abused or rarely used are tools not needed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

(The usual principles about decorum, edit warring and so on have been proposed already above)

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Ikip has edit warred[edit]

1) Ikip (talk · contribs) has engaged in frequent edit warring (per evidence) while adhering to the letter of WP:3RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. – Steel 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that all evidence is from May 2009, during the penultimate (apparently?) finale of this huge and pointless conflict.[57] rootology (C)(T) 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per your evidence. ThemFromSpace 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If you adhere to the rule, and aren't breaking it, then how can you be punished for it? Are you just against this one editor, or should we check to see how many times someone else has reverted something three times, and treat them the same way? I see three reverts happening all the time, as it is allowed, as long as you go no further. Dream Focus 09:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Someone did not "break the rules"? Singling out this one editor at this time and place acts only as a diversion to the case at hand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Schmidt and DreamFocus FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip's conduct[edit]

2) Throughout the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron conflict and its MfD, Ikip (talk · contribs) has exhibited inappropriate levels of hostility and aggression towards A Man In Black and others who disagreed with him. (per evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. – Steel 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But given the rather blunt nature of the actions and words of others, in context I don't know that it was significantly worse than average in those discussions. An admin had edit warred over the FAQ for a project that the admin didn't support and then that admin put the project up for deletion after he "lost". I'd be a bit hostile too. I will say I've found AMIB to be a generally civil person and solid admin though I often disagree with him[58]. In this case I think he was well over the line and Ikip's reaction, while inappropriate at times, wasn't disproportionate. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be mindful of this kind of thing while gathering diffs. For example, Ikip's keep rationale [59] at the MfD which is basically one big attack against AMIB rather than a defense of the ARS. I ended up discarding the diff for more or less the reasons you give—i.e. understandable frustration and/or exasperation—but I don't think the attacks on AMIB's talk or the spammers comment in particular can be defended in the same way. – Steel 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of that rant (and a rant it was) that I think was completely out of line was the part about the lies (mainly as I don't have a clue what he's referring to and he provided no diffs). The rest I think fit into the general tone (poor at best) of the discussion. I'm very sympathetic to his viewpoint about AMIB's behavior in this situation so I'm certain that colors my reading of Ikip's rant and I'm not surprised others see it as being far over the line. If everything he said was true, I think the comments were relevant. I'd guess where we differ is our perception as to if the statements in his rant were true. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was refering to AMIB repeatedly saying that he is uninvolved, after 5 months of continued harrassment, I was truly at wits end. Ikip (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as it looks much more like frustration with disruptive "criticisms" than anything else and besides this case is not called "Ikip," so trying to shoehorn him in seems a bit out of line. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support from almost all of my personal interactions with him (I can post some diffs if anybody wants) and your evidence. ThemFromSpace 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though your or even my personal reactions with Ikip are irrelevant to a case concerning A Man In Black? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All parties are subject to investigation and sanctions; the title means nothing. ThemFromSpace 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are kidding ourselves if we suggest that this is anything more than shoehorning or distracting. If Ikip being a party is relevant to the case of "A Man In Black" then the only thing pertinent is Ikip's interactions with "A Man In Black", not his interactions with you for the same reason why I have not posted all the nice interactions I have had with Ikip in an evidence section proclaiming him a good editor and proposals to that effect. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with A Nobody completely on this. Dream Focus 09:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose When Ikip becomes an admin and is then accused of abusing system tools, we can return to this. Until that time, casting the blame on him for AMIB's bad behavior acts as a bit of a distraction to the matter at hand. AMIB's behavior far predates his ever crossing Ikip's path. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Ikip has been a leading player in efforts to build an inclusive encyclopaedia consistent with Jimbos vision of articles on all subjects that can be verifiably written about with NPOV. As a result hes received much negative attention from deletionists. This may have caused a few talking points with his actions, but generally he's conducted himself with excellent composure, interacting civily with those who oppose him, and is most friendly and helpful with other editors especially newbies. An all round good egg! FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Ikip admonished[edit]

1) Ikip (talk · contribs) is admonished for his conduct and instructed to edit collaboratively and productively with people who may not share his wikiphilosophical viewpoint. This includes, but is not limited to, refraining from assumptions of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. – Steel 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as distraction, side-tracking from scope of case (see title). Besides, it should go without saying that all editors should edit colloboratively and productively with any other good faith editor. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:BATTLE. It's about time he's told what he can't do. ThemFromSpace 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a case titled "A Man In Black"? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All parties are subject to investigation and sanctions; the title means nothing. ThemFromSpace 18:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose What exactly does this mean? Sort of vague. How do you judge whether someone is editing collaboratively and productively with people who may not share their wikiphilosophical viewpoint? If you believe that a relationship between two nations is notable because of treaties, military engagements, etc. and someone else believes in mass deleting most/all of these articles, then how do you edit collaboratively and productively with them? I can not refrain from assuming bad faith on those who dragged Ikip into this case at all, and wish sanctions against him, as you do appear to have personal reasons to be against him. If you believe someone has broken a rule, you bring it to the proper place. You don't just say you don't like someone's view, and decide to take away their right to edit at all. Dream Focus 09:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as this is not about Ikip, or disagreements with him. Its about an Admin whose behavior pattern predates any conflicy with Ikip. Ikip is simply the latest to cross AMIB's path. Focus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per ANobody, Schmidt and DreamFocus FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip placed on revert parole[edit]

2) For his edit warring, Ikip (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for 6 months. Ikip is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting blatant vandalism), and is required to discuss any reversions on the page's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The proposer has set the bar for 6 months sanctions in arbcom incredibly low, almost nonexistent in fact. The proposer's original section, posted on 15:31, 29 May 2009.[60] was the evidence which he based this proposed sanctions against me, 11:25, 3 June 2009.[61] The proposer originally listed a mere 6 comments and AMIB's edit war with 5 other editors as evidence.

As just an example of how weak the proposer's evidence is, in three of these six edit diffs the proposer criticizes me for accusing others of bad faith. Ironically Themfromspace accuses me of bad faith three times in this very arbcom,[62][63][64] in addition to accusing me of bad faith several times on other pages. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip has a history of bad hand sockpuppetry and slow-moving edit wars, so his block log is not indicative of his edit warring history. He has, however, said of himself "Because of my incredibly unpopular views, I have spent three years edit warring" (January 2009) and written a guide to winning edit wars with off-wiki communication[65]. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. – Steel 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for this restriction? I see his only two blocks for Edit Warring were January 20, 2009(1), October 31, 2007(2), and that is it. You linked some evidence, but there is hardly anything of prolonged edit warring. Your three examples are all May 2009, and all again between AMIB and Ikip over ARS stuff, borne out by my claims of conflict between AMIB and the ARS users. In the event that anyone tried to contrast the sanctions proposed toward an AMiB with any eye for parity or "equal application", or anything of the sort, I just wish to note that my sanction proposals toward AMiB for edit warring are based on his years-long history of blocks as an Administrator for the against-policy practice. rootology (C)(T) 04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated that section with more diffs. – Steel 13:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an interesting note when I am looking at Ikip's block log, AMIB suggested We don't do on-request selfblocks when unblocking Ikip after Ikip requested User:Xaosflux to block him, yet AMIB self blocked(in which technically serves as on-request selfblocks by requesting oneself) 6 times on the first page of his own block log. Talking about abusing adminship. MythSearcher^talk 07:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think I knew about the generally unwritten policy against self-blocking?

Most of them were fooling with admin tools while blocked, anyway. I ended up bugging being able to block people while blocked and being able to undelete pages while being blocked, as I recall. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply made a note of what I can see. MythSearcher^talk 13:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but you ignored the context and called it "abusing adminship". Self blocking (four of your six) to test things is fine, and the other two are a whole two years before the Ikip unblock, which is plenty of time for (a) rules to change, or in this case (b) become aware of the rule. – Steel 13:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a) I have no power to check what are the self blocks are for, b) it would be impossible to me to know which of the blocks are before understanding the rule. or, what rule? As suggested in the same discussion in User:Xaosflux, it seems like there are no actual rules preventing one from requesting a self block and admins to perform such actions. I am only suggesting AMIB did what he later told others not to do. so c) AMIB have different standards on self and others, or at least it looks like that to anyone who can only see these suggested pages. I did not develop and further on that since AMIB came to defend himself, I guess you do not appreciate that and made me say more. MythSearcher^talk 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something vague about "Self-block to test a theory" or "I wanna try something. I'll self-unblock after I'm done." or "doing a bit of testing; don't mind this"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as distraction, side-tracking from scope of case (see title). Besides, it should go without saying that all editors should not edit-war. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could see this being effective from your evidence, although it's sidetracking a bit from the main case. ThemFromSpace 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no reason to do this. Dream Focus 09:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is about AMIB and not Ikip. This seems intended to distract away from the ongoing concerns with AMIB. Ooooo look, something shiny. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per ANobody Schmidt and DreamFocus FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

Use of administrative tools in a dispute[edit]

1) Administrator actions pertaining to enforcing Wikipedia's conduct policies, such as the sockpuppetry policy, the biographies of living persons policy, the vandalism policy, the civility policy, and WP:BATTLE, do not make an editor involved in a topic. Administrators are not empowered to enforce content policies such as the neutral point of view policy and the verifiability policy by using administrative tools. Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute. Administrators who are unsure whether they should take an action should defer that action to an uninvolved administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Should of course be expanded to policy or "meta" disputes, not just article content disputes. rootology (C)(T) 23:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the community if at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the AC has been deciding in this vein for years. I'll ask again: per this evidence on this link, are you arguing the AC has been wrong for years? rootology (C)(T) 02:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question assumes your conclusion as fact. I am arguing that the AC has been ruling that being involved in a content dispute is what is meant being involved for years. You're suggesting that this principle be expanded to include vaguely-defined "meta" disputes, when it has long been defined to be content disputes and just content disputes, just as it says in policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Taken from the Macedonia 2 case. ThemFromSpace 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate canvassing[edit]

2) Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms of canvassing. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A mix of the canvassing principles from the Ryulong and Ayn Rand cases. ThemFromSpace 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fait accompli[edit]

3) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Episodes and Characters 2; per my evidence. ThemFromSpace 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting[edit]

4) Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. rootology (C)(T) 23:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Applicable here. ThemFromSpace 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - any inclusionist or deletionist action could be seen as baiting by opposing parties, especially if made by a frequent contributor. I havent seen one case where it looked like ikip or amib were deliberatly baiting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of my answer to the "mail Ikip to the moon" page that was created and deleted by AMIB. The creation/deletion of the page could be taken in good faith; but mentioning it on the notability/fiction talk page crossed the line. I don't believe a flat-out finding of "AMIB was harrassing/ AMIB was trolling" to be valid but this identifies that it may be percieved in that manner and thus should be avoided. ThemFromSpace 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the argument that I was trying to provoke him, though. In January 2009 and before, I had barely had any contact with Ikip. My only significant contact with him was this archived WT:FICT discussion, where we were agreeing to reject the proposed guideline. Keep in mind, this was before I became involved at WT:ARS, before I was aware of Ikip's creation of {{ARS/Tagged}}, before any sort of interaction with Ikip at all. How do I benefit by provoking a stranger I agree with? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Ikip has engaged in inappropriate canvassing[edit]

1) Ikip has, on multiple occassions, excessively cross-posted messages aimed at a specific audience with the intent on influencing deletion debates. ([66] [67] [68]; [69] [70] [71]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I couldn't say it better than Themfromspace, who questioned whether this should even be in this arbcom:

"Is the canvassing spree within the scope of the arbitration case? I thought the case was centered around AMIB's actions directed at Ikip."[72]

See: for the incredibly low threshold which Themfromspace has for canvassing Flatscan himself did what Themfromspace accused me of canvassing for. This WP:BATTLE warrior trio, Themfromspace, Flatscan, and AMIB have been involved in extreme WP:Forum shopping. Ever single time they were unable to make any of these baseless charges stick, they continued undaunted, leading up to AMIB having to block me himself. A block which Themfromspace himself calls a "not justified" block. Also see Themfromspace's own extreme battleground and deletionist behavior. Should we propose sanctions on Themfromspace too and/or add Themfromspace as a party?

Comment by others:

From the evidence that Flatscan and I presented. This is indeniable and relevant to the case at hand. ThemFromSpace 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These may be dumb questions, but here they go.

1. On the three links to posts[73][74][75] aren't links to specific deletion debates; they're links to the adoption of the Fiction guideline. Whom else is the relevant or major party of interest but the people that work on these sorts of articles? I don't quite get whats wrong with those three.

2. Whats exactly wrong with inviting people to check out a Wikiproject?[76][77][78] I don't get how that is canvassing at all...

None of those line up with your finding about canvassing that I can see on the surface, especially the invitations to check out the ARS. Is the ARS supposed to live in a hermetically sealed box, unlike other Wikiprojects? :) rootology (C)(T) 23:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to advertise the group would be to point individuals towards it if they express an interest in rescuing articles. See my evidence for of why the last three diffs show canvassing, but the rationale applies to the first three as well. The major issues are the scope of the actions (hundreds of messages of which I only linked to three each from two seperate events) and the users they were sent to (editors with the inclusionist tag on their pages and articles where the creators and builders would obviously want to keep their work). Each of these is a violation of WP:CANVASS. ThemFromSpace 23:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per edit summary of "lets throw some things up and see what sticks." What is this some kind of game? We add items that we believe have serious potential of going somewhere. This is pure venue shopping and distracting from the subject at hand. You wanted to start on RfC against Ikip as seen at User_talk:Themfromspace#RfC and User_talk:Themfromspace#Some_info and so instead of starting that RfC are just trying to shoehorn it into this case. As DGG said on the evidence page, it is telling when instead of defending AMIB, we wind up with some going after his leading critic instead. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the first nor the only one who noticed this and attributed it to this case. The canvassing part plays a big role in this case as AMIB specifically blocked Ikip for canvassing. It needs to be established that he does have a history of inappropriate canvassing. Please assume good faith that I am here in the best interest of this case. ThemFromSpace 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith would be to assume that Ikip was not canvassing in the first place, but rather in good faith elicting feedbck from other editors as a courtesy. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Previous discussions have concluded that while he may have pushed the limits, Ikip did not engage in inapprpriate canvassing... But what has derdging up that old news have to do with a history of contention as established against AMIB... a history that predates ever having crossed Ikip's path? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because his history of canvassing for favorable editors predates having come in contact with me, and is the reason I came in contact with him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason you came in contact with me AMIB, as you wrote in this AfD:

"I would like to add that this AFD listed as part of WP:ARS's inclusion efforts, and shortly thereafter the bloc of keeps appeared."[79]

Concerned that ARS was saving articles that were in your words "crap"[80] you launched a new "one-man consensus army"[81] against ARS. Deleting templates, deleting editors comments, getting in four edit wars with five editors, and right before being blocked for 9 days, putting the project page up for deletion two hours after your 3rr which got you blocked. Model behavior for an admin? Ikip (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. ARS tools auto-canvassed. I noticed. I criticized them. The story begins.

The rest is argument by distraction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

I have no further principles to add beyond those listed elsewhere on the page. Wizardman 03:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Requests for Arbitration are the last step in dispute resolution[edit]

1) A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Save for emergency situations, unusually divisive disputes among administrators, and matters directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before a case is filed. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but technically that would apply to every case, so I don't see it as necessary to add this in. Wizardman 03:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every commenter to date has brought up a dispute that hasn't yet been through other means of dispute resolution. Rootology never said anything on my talk, ARS still needs its RFC, Themfromspace was drafting an RFC about Ikip.

Moreover, this case has wandered off on so many tangents in part because there's no previous dispute resolution to refine and focus it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

From arbitration policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• My sense is that AMIB made it clear he wanted the RfC step skipped. I may be taking this out-of-context, but I don't think so. [82]

  "AMIB is an involved admin deep in the inclusionist/deletionist wars, and involved admins are explicitly forbidden from using their tools. AMIB at this point has no more standing to use his tools to process AFDs, or anything related to them. He needs to respect that, or the next time he's probably on a short train to RFC and then Arbcom. rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Exceptional claims require exceptional justification. Either take this to the arbcom to have my admin bit removed over this, or strike it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)"

  Hobit (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That exchange is in fact what made me really look at his block log, which is what made me look deeper still, which is what led me (especially his block log, at first) to file this request. rootology (C)(T) 02:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Rootology suggested that I was summarily deadminned, based on his unsubstantiated say-so. I suggested that he try the processes for doing so instead of making ridiculous pronouncements. (The context here is that both comments are short, and I don't have any reason to suspect that someone is going to read between the lines and assume that my omission of RFC is out of some sort of implied disdain for RFC than simply an interest in brevity.) But this discussion is illustrative; from the start, Rootology has had a deadminning solution and it's been in search of a justification. This search for a justification has skipped all the steps that can't result in deadminning, has covered a half-dozen topics, and never once landed at any stage of dispute resolution save this one. He wouldn't even talk to me on my talk page unless I "voluntarily" deadminned first.

  Rootology's deeper look wasn't very deep: he missed this, which was (and still is!) on my talk page at the time. His justifications for skipping Wikipedia's dispute resolution party are thin. Do we want to set the precedent that RFC can be skipped when you don't feel like it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, we read that very differently. He suggested that you were involved and not accepting that would probably put you "on a short train to RFC and then Arbcom". I'm not seeing anything about you being "summarily deadminned" or skipping processes for doing so. In fact he listed RfC and Arbcom as next steps. You are the only one who suggested going straight to Arbcom. Hobit (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm talking about the beginning. "You have no standing to act as an admin" is no different than "You are summarily deadminned." From the beginning his hammer is "You should stop making administrative actions," and he's discarded all forms of dispute resolution that don't resemble a nail. The result is a sprawling case that has attracted a great deal of stale or nonadministrative or nondisruptive lint. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators and disruptive users[edit]

2) One aspect of the responsibilities of an administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users. Administrators are authorized to use their best judgment in accordance with accepted principles in order to do this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. Relevant whether you believe I was using my best judgement, or if I was not acting accordance with accepted principles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, can you cite any previous RFAR cases where this specific wording was endorsed, as a standard? rootology (C)(T) 05:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your objection is. Do you feel that this standard is not supported by community consensus, or that it isn't relevant to this case?

As for consensus, this principle - with this specific wording - has been on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles for years. Each administrative tool has specific instructions on how to use it to limit disruption: WP:BP has instructions on when, why, and how to block disruptive users; WP:CSD has instructions on speedily deleting disruptive pages; WP:PP has instructions for protecting pages to prevent disruption. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just curious to see when the last time this was signed off on the by the committee with this wording was. rootology (C)(T) 07:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. It's the best succinct description of the relationship of disruptive users and administrators that I've found. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Discussion and dispute resolution[edit]

3) Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages.

3.1) Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, it is included in the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies, as part of language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another standard. I added a 3.1 with less tortured wording. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant both because my discussion at WT:ARS has been described as disruption without any evidence other than the existence of the discussion, and because there was little pre-discussion of one of the varied issues raised at this RFAr. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

External conduct[edit]

4) While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard, nicked this from the Ryulong case. Relevant because of e-mailed requests to act on Ikip's behalf and his guide to abusing e-mail to drive users off of Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Involvement[edit]

1) A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was not involved in a content dispute with Ikip (talk · contribs). No evidence of a dispute more specific than a general disagreement of philosophy has been presented, and per this principle involvement in a dispute requires a more specific dispute or use of administrative tools to gain an advantage.

1.1) As of April 26, A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was not involved in any content dispute, contentious policy discussion, article deletion debate, edit war, or similar contentious debate with Ikip (talk · contribs) on matters of policy creation or article content. No dispute more specific than a general disagreement of philosophy between the two has been alleged; where their participation in contentious discussions overlapped, it was to agree[83][84][85] as often as not. The crux of the contention between them arises from AMIB's criticism of Ikip's conduct, criticism posted at WT:CANVASS[86], WT:ARS, and WP:ANI

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've been saying this a lot. Might as well make it a FOF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting my standard disagreement (per about every inch of this workshop) that I fundamentally disagree with the narrow vision of "involvement" being delegated to a "specific" content dispute per the historic standards our community has always employed[87], where it's broader in scope, and the ongoing conflicts and debates between AMIB & Ikip are in alignment with the standard historical metrics of "involvement". rootology (C)(T) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posit that Themfromspace's involvement standard, linked above, is the involvement standard. Would you argue that there was a less nebulous dispute or that I gained some advantage by blocking Ikip? This is less for the arbcom case than my own erudition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll play along (noting again that I strongly disagree that the conflict burden is "articles only", which is a childishly silly notion in my opinion) this once but slightly differently. Probable scenarios, playing the role of a Gil Grissom here, based on everything I've seen so far. Any of these or none of these may be right, but based on the evidence I say we have a decent forensic likelihood that one of these three is what actually happened with your block of Ikip:

1) If I go by this standard, then your advantage in blocking Ikip for two borderline 48 hour-old talk page posts is that it notches a solid block against him for "canvassing", if the block sticks. Every 'valid' block one picks up is a tool for future dispute resolution. I will not cite this, so don't ask; it's simple fact.

2) You yourself took this approach, and wanted to finally make an example of him after you hadn't gotten any traction in other avenues. This would on the surface fit in with your general on-wiki persistent immaturity, evidenced by what I think is your first detectable edits to ARS, in July 2008. You here reverted to a "random" version of the last 50[88], with the edit summary, "Wheel of morality, turn turn turn. Tell us the lesson that we must learn." and then protected it on the next edit. While I'm sure that seemed clever, it's immature and not how protection is allowed to work in an edit war. You lock it where you find it, and that's it. Blocking someone for a borderline debatable offense 2 days prior, where you may be involved? That's an immature action as well.

3) You screwed up, someone vigorously called you on it, you threw down the RFAR gauntlet, and have been trying to spin this as "covered by policy" since you realized that person you told to take it to RFAR was going to ask that your entire record be examined, and then provided evidence of your entire record; you took the RFAR lightly, despite the fact that everyone--even me--offered to get you unblocked to come in here earlier, and have been caught flat footed by the fact that years of not doing things right have caught up.

Again, I wish it hadn't come down to this, but intractable admins aren't a good thing. rootology (C)(T) 07:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. #1 is a fair point. #2 ("maturity" is not "doing things the way Rootology would") and #3 (more rambling about why talk page discussion and RFC were skipped) are non sequitors. The constant speculation as to my reasons and thought processes is obnoxious. Please cut it out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter about sums up my reply, especially your reply to #2. You can have the floor for the Workshop now, since we've jumped a shark here, with the implication in your response that adhering to the Protection Policy doesn't apply to you in some fashion, or that "my" saying you lock down an edit war according to the standard way we're supposed to is "my way". You really don't get the point of adminship, do you? It's not a bit of flair for your account, as you seem to conduct it. I still expect a response of names that "supported" your block of Ikip in the above prior reply by me. As for speculation about your motivation, I'll be happy to cut that out, since I won't touch this page again. My speculating about your motivations, in retrospect, can be sign on a par with your endless spin wherein you still won't even answer my multiply asked question of whether the Arbcom's historical standards of admin involvement are valid or not. But you can't answer, of course, since if you say no, you're railing against the machine of the Arbcom, and if you concede a yes, you concede you're involved.

You can have the Workshop from here; good luck with your adminship. rootology (C)(T) 07:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Continue to ask a question, and remind the user that you have asked the question, x number of times, and they have ignored it. Be relentless until you get an answer. This makes your opponent look like they are dodging uncomfortable questions, which they usually are. Don't get side tracked, don't let them change the subject. Keep asking the same question, over and over and over." From Ikip's own "Machiavelli view on Wikipedia".

I support the arbcom's historical standards of involvement. I do not believe your standard of involvement is in line with the arbcom's historical standard. This loaded question has been asked and answered, repeatedly.

As for the rest, your opinion on protection policy (where I reverted to a pre-edit war version) isn't really relevant to administrative involvement.

But thanks for the accusation that I think administration is "a bit of flair for your account" and that my replies to your comments are "endless spin", in reply to my request that you stop speculating about my thought processes. Administrators do cleanup work that other users cannot and work to limit disruption of the encyclopedia. I do much more of the latter than the former, and as it tends to be contentious work (nobody likes being told to stop doing something), it doesn't make me a lot of friends. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in case headers break or something, this is based on Themfromspace's involvement principle, from his proposed principles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new, more-specific 1.1 that makes the timeline a bit clearer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ikip sees inclusion as a battle[edit]

2) Ikip (talk · contribs) see article inclusion/deletion as a battleground, and considers criticism of his conduct part of this battle.[89] [90]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

FOF, based on something I found. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support from evidence. ThemFromSpace 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip believes in pushing the boundaries of civility[edit]

3) Ikip (talk · contribs) has advised users to push the limits of the civility policy to accomplish their goals, advising users to be passive-aggressive[91][92][93]. In particular, he has stated that "being passive aggressive is the key to winning edit wars".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support from your evidence. ThemFromSpace 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip and off-wiki communication[edit]

4) Ikip (talk · contribs) frequently coordinates with other users through e-mail[94][95][96], and has a stated desire to avoid scrutiny[97][98][99]. This has included asking users to act on his behalf in arbitration committee cases[100]. Ikip (talk · contribs) has also written a guide to abusing offwiki communication to prevail in disputes. This guide includes such advice as "start an off-line group of like minded editors in which you can set up strategies to intimidate and push off foes". Such strategies include provoking opponents ("try to find out what pushes their [opponent's] buttons", "ask allies via e-mail what makes them mad", and "when you get them to say something they shouldn't, report them to WP:ANI[, t]hen you could e-mail an ally admin, who is not involved with the dispute, to ban them") and gaming arbitration committee cases ("e-mail you [sic] allies about the Arbcom making sure they comment fast and first, setting the tone of the Arbcom").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate example from the same page: "Call a Request for Comment on the disputed page. Go to WP:RfC to set it up. Then e-mail all of your allies asking them to comment. Remember: it is important to sway the conversation quickly at the beginning. Most neutral Wikipedians who see this RfC are lazy and will only read the first couple of entires before making uninformed comments." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I split this into two separate FOFs. There's the offwiki coordination, and the guide to abusive offwiki coordination. Accepting one doesn't necessarily mean accepting the other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm a little confused about the format- why not just make this one point? Also relevant here is the message on the Evidence talk page where Jtrainor says Ikip asked him by email to post here. ThemFromSpace 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, you're right. As for his contacting Jtrainor, it's up there, as this diff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that now. I can support this as being relevant to his behavioural issues. ThemFromSpace 16:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip dismisses criticism[edit]

5) Ikip (talk · contribs) dismisses criticism and critics of his conduct as partisan action in some sort of battle.[101][102][103].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ikip consults Rootology for intervention[edit]

6) Ikip (talk · contribs) has consulted Rootology (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for intervention as an uninvolved admin in the past.[104][105]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. Relevant because of #Ikip and off-wiki communication. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I said I wouldn't post again, but I need to clarify fictional technical errors in your proof here. Ikip asked for Business Plot to be protected onWP:RFPP, where I am a regular, that's where I saw it: evidence, and then protected it from. 100% standard, I do lots of RFPP protections. As for this second one, I had posted either that text he quoted or that image on AN or ANI recently then, I can't recall which, and he was quoting it. What does this FoF have to do there as formulated with me, Ikip, or anything significant? He thanked for me for a RFPP protect and let me know he quoted me. Shocking because...? rootology (C)(T) 14:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Ikip has written a guide to abusively gaining the advantage in disputes, and one of the pieces of advice is to contact a sympathetic, uninvolved admin offwiki, to act on your behalf. Another piece of advice from that page is to lavish sympathetic admins with praise and support and barnstars.

He has lavished praise and support on you[106], he has had positive interaction with you before (the page protection), he has asked you to act on his behalf before (the comment about ANI), he has asked editors offwiki to act on his behalf before, and you both unblocked him and filed this RFAr. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Other means of dispute resolution have not been exhausted[edit]

7) Some of the disputes raised in this request for arbitration can be effectively resolved with other means of dispute resolution. These disputes, where still relevant, should be resolved with discussion or dealt with in preceding steps of dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A catch-all for anything that arbcom feels is out of scope or stale. I'm assuming arbcom isn't going to resolve ARS's scope/purpose, Mythsearcher's Real Robot beef, the random scatterings of accusations aimed at Flatscan, etc. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The Article Rescue Squadron FAQ was created to provoke[edit]

8) Ikip (talk · contribs) created a frequently asked questions page[107] for the Article Rescue Squadron. This page included no questions of any sort. Instead, it was Ikip's rebuttal to anyone who accused him or the project of canvassing, and a blanket claim that anyone who disagreed with the project's conduct would be better suited at a wikiproject with "a [sic] active delete agenda". Ikip was aware that these claims would be controversial[108], but reverted them back into the FAQ five times[109][110][111][112][113] over the next week and a half.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. Particularly relevant because of Ikip's stated plan of provoking opponents. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I didn't see this as a means to provoke as much as a motivation to end the constant criticism from A Man In Black against ARS filling up talkthreads. The current version has remained quite stable after the block. Like most things it could use some tweaking but serves it's basic purpose to address the common issues that are routinely raised while avoiding - yet another - prolonged discussion that don't seem to sway anyone. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black, Ikip, and others edit warred at the Article Rescue Squadron FAQ[edit]

9) A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Ikip (talk · contribs) revert warred over "As an editor who actively supports the deletion of many articles, I object to what Article Rescue Squadron is doing" and its response at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ. This was slow-moving edit warring, with about a revert or two a day, until May 10. On May 15, AMIB removed the wording again[114], sparking an edit war that lasted May 15-18, with AMIB[115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123], Ikip[124][125][126], Benjiboi (talk · contribs)[127][128], Yandman (talk · contribs)[129], Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)[130][131], and others[132][133] reverting. The edit war came to an end when AMIB self-reverted.[134] Thereafter, AMIB was blocked and and Ikip was cautioned.[135]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. Not terribly flattering to me but oh well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link to the page being edit warred over. Note that the edit summaries telling people to use the talk page are referring to WT:ARS; there was some confusion over this previously. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support with the evidence. ThemFromSpace 15:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a history link be a good supplement? It looks cleaner. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip is uncivil to those he perceives as opponents[edit]

10) Ikip (talk · contribs) is uncivil and dismissive towards those he perceives as opponents.[136]p His attitude can be summed up with "I don't care what you think. Go away."[137]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Behaviour of involved parties should be looked at but you should also indicate why this is relevant to this particular case. ThemFromSpace 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#Ikip sees inclusion as a battle, #Ikip dismisses criticism, and this are a series. Ikip sees disputes in terms of a battleground between those who agree with him and those who disagree with him, and all editors as warriors motivated by this battle. Having presumed that anyone who criticizes him is motivated by a desire to win the battle with him, he dismisses criticism from anyone who disagrees with him out of hand, often rudely (above) or passive-aggressively. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will synthesize. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip sees critics as opponents[edit]

11) Ikip (talk · contribs) is dismissive of criticism from those he perceives as opponents.[138]. He dismisses such criticism as motivated by bad faith[139][140], because he feels all actions taken on Wikipedia are motivated by partisan feelings[141][142][143]. Even when this does not manifest as outright hostility, he holds that "being passive aggressive is the key to winning edit wars"[144][145][146]. His attitude towards users who do not agree with him can be summed up with "I don't care what you think. Go away."[147]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Synthesis of 2, 3, 5, and 10 above, with some new stuff. Note #Ikip and off-wiki communication, where Ikip's attitude toward opponents also includes comments like "start an off-line group of like minded editors in which you can set up strategies to intimidate and push off foes." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an example from this workshop page. This is an ongoing attitude problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ikip's preferred method of dispute resolution is driving other users from the discussion[edit]

13) Ikip (talk · contribs) prefers to drive other editors away from talk pages, or Wikipedia as a whole, instead of resolving disputes. He repeatedly suggested that users who were critical of WP:ARS leave the talk page to seek out a wikiproject with an "active delete agenda"[148][149]. Part of this effort to drive editors away from discussion is creating a straw poll proposal to topic ban A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) from the ARS talk page[150], and advertising this straw poll to favorable editors and only favorable editors[151][152][153][154][155] rather than a neutral venue such as WP:RFC. Additionally, Ikip has recommended that like-minded users work together to drive their opponents off of Wikipedia, as stated here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. Some evidence of the "get lost" attitude and why it is harmful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ikip did not feel threatened or harassed by AMIB as of February 21, 2009[edit]

14) Ikip (talk · contribs) did not feel threatened, harassed, or attacked by A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as of February 2009. He left a barnstar on AMIB talk page after collaboration on a userspace template on February 6[156], and left a similar template on AMIB's talk page as of February 21[157].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fact. Relevant because it has been alleged that Ikip took Mail to the moon, etc. as an attack page and that there was some sort of heated dispute between the two of us as of our first contact with each other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: