Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This case is accepted solely to investigate use of wikipedia:votes for deletion by Anthony. Other issues will not be heard by the arbitration committee at this time (they may be referred to mediation).

Evidence not relating to use of VfD has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Old evidence for safekeeping. Martin 00:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] VfD removal policy

This is evidence of Wikipedia policy which concern Secretlondon's accusations of removing items from VfD.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia maintenance

There is a common misconception that only sysops can deal with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. This is not the case. Over half of the pages listed are never deleted, so at least half the work can be done by non-sysops.
If items have been listed on VfD for more than five days and there is a rough consensus to keep them (particularly if less than 66% have voted to delete), then these can be removed from VfD.

Anthony removed an item from VfD which had a 75% vote to delete[1], stating "no consensus" in the edit summary. silsor 18:55, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

7 delete, 4 keep (when you include my vote, to keep). 7/11=63%, which is far from consensus (even 75% is less than consensus). Anthony DiPierro 21:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9 delete, 3 keep - 75% on the nose. - Texture 22:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9 delete? Where are you getting that from? And 3 keep? Are you counting me? Anthony DiPierro 22:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete
    1. Seth Ilys
    2. Average Earthman
    3. Texture
    4. Unsigned (probably shouldn't count per rules)
    5. Dpbsmith
    6. Niteowlneils
    7. RickK
    8. Wile E. Heresiarch
    9. Jiang
  • Keep
    1. Unsigned (probably shouldn't count per rules)
    2. Daniel C. Boyer
    3. Everyking

Either 9-3 or 8-2 (making it 80%) - Texture 22:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, once again, you didn't count my vote. Where is the rule that unsigned votes shouldn't be counted? In any case, I seem to have miscounted. 9-4 is 69%, which is not a consensus. Anthony DiPierro 22:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, you didn't vote. When the vote ended and you removed it the tally was 9-3 (and many admins don't count unsigned since you cannot attribute it to anyone. I don't.) - Texture 23:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Let it be noted that you believe that one must make two separate edits to VfD in order to count one's own vote, then. Let it further be noted that I disagree with this principle. If you'd like to discuss the principle, take it somewhere else, though. This page is cluttered enough as is. Anthony DiPierro 23:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Excerpts from VfD

  • Richard Genovese - another obscure surrealist, most likely self-promotion. --Wik 18:49, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Most likely not self-promotion. BTW, no vfd tag. Anthony DiPierro 02:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Steve Labelle - 105 google hits; if we dont know this guy, then delete --Jiang 09:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Shaheen Lakhan was written by his obvious sock puppet and is again self promotion.--Jiang 01:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not written by his obvious sock puppet and is not self-promotion. Anthony DiPierro 12:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sarah Marple-Cantrell Looks like a personal page SD6-Agent 13:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Doesn't look like a personal page. Anthony DiPierro 15:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Kendall Bruns subject only has 344 google hits (wikipedia no. 3), looks like self promotion. --Jiang 02:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Subject has 344 google hits. Doesn't look like self-promotion. Anthony DiPierro 03:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bethany Massimilla - person who works for CNet. Not famous. Secretlondon 11:55, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Person who works for CNet. Famous. Anthony DiPierro 16:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • How to make Biodiesel Not an encylopaedic subject. Wikibooks? Bmills 12:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oxford Revelation Rock-Gospel Choir Looks like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. The group in question is hardly important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article anyway. G-Man 16:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Chestnut Crescent, Aylesbury - orphaned article about a minor road on a housing estate in Aylesbury. Hardly encyclopedia material. -- Graham :) 16:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Catherine Gordon. Any reason why this person needs to be kept as a separate page? RickK 01:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Any reason why this person shouldn't be kept as a separate page? Anthony DiPierro 04:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This record leaves no doubt of his trolling:

  • Goodwin, Hester Genealogical stub about non-famous person, but my main objection is the title. Deb 19:01, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Delete. Wikikiwi 20:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Title is fixed. Keep. Famous. Anthony DiPierro 21:13, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Famous for doing what? Or being what? Onebyone 23:19, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonfamous. --Wik 21:15, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous. Mrdice 21:23, 2004 Feb 11 (UTC)
    • Delete as not famous. The article does not indicate why this person is in any way noteworthy. --No-One Jones (talk) 21:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • How can you, Tony, say she's famous? Not a single page links to Hester Goodwin, and none of the names in her own article has an entry. Who is she? Don't be so damn monosyllabic! Wikikiwi 21:34, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonfamous. This is somebody's genealogy project. See [2] DJ Clayworth 21:40, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous. Secretlondon 21:53, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, no proof of anything resembling noteworthyness. - snoyes 21:59, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, shouldn't have to be famous, but must at least be notable in context of something. Cool Hand Luke 01:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous, or, at least, nobody has produced any evidence that she is. Doesn't pass the Google test. Dpbsmith 02:43, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not an encylopaedic subject. The onus in on anyone saying she is famous to prove it. Bmills 12:42, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Fails to state any information that could colourably be interpreted as basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Article could be revised so such information is included but until they my vote is to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another one which on its very own would be perfectly sufficient to ban him:

  • C. J. Everon and Justice Better Attained seem to be a self-promotion for an obscure author and their book. - SimonP 00:29, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems to be self-promotion for an obscure author and eir book. Anthony DiPierro 00:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Note from Emsworth: The evidence above was presented by User:Wik.)

I don't think we ban people for having a sense of humor. He was expressing his vote as a humorous point. - Texture 03:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
More than half of the above pages were kept. anthony (see warning) 21:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anthony is now abusing the VfD page by filling it with legitimate entries: Catherine Coleman, Vladimir Dzhanibekov, Hans Schlegel, Premiers Plans, Arthur R. Kantrowitz, Wall of the Sun, Virtua Fighter 4, Boys Beware. RadicalBender 14:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at those entries. They are by no means legitimate. Anthony DiPierro 14:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, they are. You were seeking revenge because you were being voted down on Charles Edward Jones who was in the astronaut program who died on 9/11. So, you decided to add other astronauts to VfD (and then other entries that mostly deserve cleanup not deletion) to try and prove a point. RadicalBender 15:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
They are not legitimate. In fact most of them are probably not going to survive. If I wasn't the one who nominated them, they'd probably all be deleted. Anthony DiPierro 15:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Most are probably not going to survive? Only Wall of the Sun and Virtua Fighter 4 are even looking to be set up as redirects. However, you originally listed them as delete (presumably, you did list them on that page), but you modified your entry to Merge and Redirect, respectively, afterwards. If you actually believe that, why did you list them on VfD? That's just wasting everybody's time. RadicalBender 16:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anthony added at least three items to VfD with no intention that they be deleted. [3] - Removed after he added "no vote" to his request for deletion. - Perhaps he changed his mind but there is no indication that he ever wanted them deleted. - Texture 17:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That is untrue. You yourself even voted delete for one of them. Anthony DiPierro 17:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I did say that perhaps you changed your mind. Was that the case? You failed to add that useful information when you wrote "no vote". - Texture 17:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I never intended to vote. I don't think a nomination should count as a vote. Anthony DiPierro 17:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please review the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Posting on VfD is "To request that a page or image be deleted" - Texture 17:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have reviewed that, and I did not violate it. Also, that policy is not meant to be absolute, especially with regard to pages like possible copyright infringements. This thread should be taken elsewhere. Anthony DiPierro 17:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anthony nominated 8 pages for deletion, then when everyone voted to keep, he withdrew his own votes. This caused no less than 80 edits to VfD within less than two hours, pointlessly adding some 8 megabytes to VfD history. --Wik 17:16, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
This is untrue. Anthony DiPierro 17:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you've been making some pretty good comments on VfD, Anthony. I wish that I had the patience to do that! -- Toby Bartels 22:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Excerpts from Talk:Cristiane Alexandre vfd discussion

Anthony's comments here were particularly inappropriate, particularly the unnecessary inflamatory accusations. - DropDeadGorgias 18:51, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Cristiane Alexandre - irrelevant. --Wik 19:45, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Irrelevant to whom? Anthony DiPierro 20:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. A second next guy of millions of bank managers. Mikkalai 20:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • According to the Ananova article, she's a chick. Anthony DiPierro 21:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Are we going to list every victim of crime in history? Average Earthman 20:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Would you rather we just list the white ones? Anthony DiPierro 20:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • No, and your comment is nothing but inflammatory. RickK 02:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • If you think that you must not understand it. Anthony DiPierro 02:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • It reads like an accusation of racism. Are you accusing me of racism?Average Earthman 18:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - I was hit by a bicycle once, do I get a page? - Texture 21:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[It should be noted that a large portion of this conversation has not been included. -AD]

[edit] proportion of VfD edits

This has been taken back to 2nd February. I also haven't attempted to look at VfD (most of Anthony's edits are to VfD [untrue -AD]) Secretlondon 22:53, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

In the last 500 edits, 110 are to VfD. (Now, don't go looking at my numbers... I take that back, my numbers aren't quite as bad... ;) - Texture 23:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

20 of the last 500 were removals of VfD tags which had never been removed. 40 were images tagged as part of the image tag team. In addition there were a number of stubs created, a number of redirects created, a number of wikifications, and a number of links disambiguated. At least one Flast v. Cohen was a brand new article written from scratch. Another W.E.B. Du Bois was a significant addition from three referenced sources. A public domain image was found and uploaded. This was all over the course of 5 days. Anthony DiPierro 02:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Anthony_DiPierro_Evidence_8e20.html"