Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Statements by uninvolved parties
[edit] Statement by ElC
Blu needs to take some responsibility for what he did, what he participated in, and what he allowed to happen, both in the old and new Wikipedia Review. In the old one, this involves allowing racist hate speech and the revealing of personal info. In the new one, aslo the revealing of personal info, and the Brandt harrassment. His apology explicitly conveys the exact opposite, only "regret." El_C 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by FloNight
As recently as Tue 23rd May 2006, 8:39pm Blu Aardvark made comments on Wikipedia Review that encourage Andrew Morrow to taunt AnnH. “Wanna have some fun, Amorrow? Since AnnH (MusicalLinguist) is having so much fun tracking, reverting, and blocking your edits, throw a wrench in the works. Hit recentchanges for a bit and revert a little vandalism. See if your good friend Ann reverts you because you are banned, or has the common sense that some edits, even those of "banned" users, do have merit after all.”[1] This statements alone shows that Blu has not changed enough to be considered for a mentoring program. --FloNight talk 02:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by JoshuaZ
In general, the behavior on Wikipedia review of Blu and others is problematic, given that at least one admin (Katefan0) has left Wikipedia after Brandt's antics there. I would ask that the ArbCom consider this case not only in the context of Blu's individual behavior but the people who he has associated himself with and condoned and has shown no intention of ceasing to work with. As long as Blu continues to conspire with Brandt and other WR denizens, there can be no place in this project for Blu. JoshuaZ 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Avillia
I was hoping this RfAr would be broad spectrum with this entire dispute, but alas it is very narrow, and I suppose my statement should be as well, though it will not be.
- WikipediaReview is not Wikipedia. It is not verifiable, it is not connected, and it should not be the reason for On-Wiki actions. The idea of using off-wiki incidents for on-wiki actions has been quashed numerous times, the most recent example being the failed change to WP:NPA.
- Wikipedia supports the concept of redemption; The Arbitration Committee has upheld this concept previously.
- Blu Aardvark has been banned for some time and has shown promise for reform as well as civility and respect in his dealings. He has additionally expressed remorse on his user page between the blocks and unblocks he has been subject to.
- Blu Aardvark would be subject to the mentorship agreement Linuxbeak has put forward and he would be liable to be blocked at any time. He would seek the advocacy and advice of his mentors prior to many actions.
- There has been a unacceptable level of incivility on WP:ANI in the handling of this situation.
- There is basis for the assumption that Jimbo has expressed his support for a trial unbanning of these users. I sincerly doubt a bureaucrat would lie about his opinion on this matter and risk his future on Wikipedia as a result.
My opinion is fairly clear here; Unblock. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Kim van der Linde
I have avoided to enter the flurry of posts elsewhere. First of all, I think this is the proper place to make this kind of far reaching decisions. I would like to put forward that wikipedia exists because people can edit in peace here, and the rules and guidelines are just to do that, ensure sufficient safety for the good intended editors and admins who in the end have made wikipedia what it is today. As such, if sufficient saveguards are met, the unblock is consulted with those editors and admins directly harmed previously, and the banned editor has openly and unambigiously apologized (which I consider in this done), nothing should stand in the way of unblocking. It is up to the Arbcom, in interaction with the affected editors and mentors, to set the rules under which a banned user can return. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Jpgordon
This whole incident has been pretty shocking -- and another case put before ArbCom just four days ago shows a much more sensible and far less inflammatory way of dealing with a community ban -- talk to the community openly, rather than on an off-wiki chat system. I would like to see this request for arbitration expanded to include the entire subject of community bans and their circumvention after secret discussion outside of normal Wikipedia channels. It's especially peculiar that an ArbCom member (Raul) would participate in this act of contempt for the community rather than encourage the obvious -- an appeal of the community ban, where facts and evidence could be brought forward. There appears to be a big hole in policy here, and this is an opportunity to fix at least a bit of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by ajn
- (In concurring with Jpgordon above)
- I agree with this. There needs to be some clarification of the acceptable procedure for imposing and lifting a community ban, with the emphasis on community involvement. --ajn (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Follow up to Jpgordon by ElC
If it's controversial, there's needs to be a discussion on-wiki. IRC, forums, private chats, etc., are insufficient. Kim disagrees with me that this can realistically be reflected in a policy/guideline. I think it can. But maybe it can more effectively and expediently be implemented as de facto policy in the form of an arbcom directive. I don't really care one way or the other, so long as it actually works. El_C 11:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questions by TenOfAllTrades
With respect to Avillia's comments, I would ask the following questions.
- Has there been any indication – besides Avillia's hypothetical suggestion – that the comments on Wikipedia Review were not made by the same person as our Blu Aardvark?
- Is there any suggestion that the comments made on WR have been altered in any way, such that they no longer represent Blu Aardvark's words?
Unless there is a serious case to be made that Blu Aardvark's WR contributions were tampered with, I don't see why they are not verifiable.
I don't think it is inappropriate for the ArbCom to consider the behaviour of editors off-wiki where that behaviour is meant to have on-wiki consequences. Encouraging a banned user to harrass an admin would, I think, fall into that category. Given that this was done just last week, I am skeptical of the 'promise for reform...civility and respect'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Thatcher131
- I concur that behavior off-wiki that is meant to have on-wiki consequences should be taken into consideration whereas other off-wiki behavior might not be. I also agree with Lethe's request for clarification on whether holding discussions and taking decisions on IRC is an appropriate way to obtain a consensus of the wikipedia "community." Thatcher131 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Simetrical
I doubt that anyone on the ArbCom has missed it, but for any passersby, there's a massive discussion/admin flamewar going on at WP:ANI#Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking. Based on what I've seen of the disagreement, I think that a) negotiation is impossible due to how fundamental the disagreement is (should off-wiki behavior be held against someone? association with/administration of an anti-Wikipedia site?), and b) mediation is impossible because of the number of parties involved. An RFC has not, however, been opened yet. I'm thinking of rectifying that, but I won't bother if ArbCom accepts the case. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Lethe
In addition to the matter of whether Blu should be taken back into the fold, I would like to see the ArbCom comment on the culture of IRC policy-making to the exclusion of Wikipedia opinion. Both Linuxbeak and Raul have done unblocks which were clearly controversial without making their case on Wikipedia, and both explicitly cite conversations on IRC as the basis; the results seem to have been quite hurtful. -lethe talk + 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request by User:Kim Bruning
I merely request that - as per usual- the arbitration committee simply applies the rule that activities outside wikipedia by any of the parties do not apply on the wiki itself. This rule happens to protect Blue Aardvark, but it also protects Raul654 and Linuxbeak, and many other key wikipedians going about their daily business.
Kim Bruning 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by freakofnurture
A number of long-time contributors have either already quit the project or threatened to do so, not necessarily due to conflicts with this user in particular, but due to an increasingly disturbing trend of extending a greater assumption of good faith to banned trolls than to our own (supposedly trusted) administrators. I suppose this is a prelude to the ultimate test: whether the project can recover from an internal, calculated experiment in self-destruction? — May. 31, '06 [12:30] <freak|talk>
[edit] Statement by an outside but interested party
I'm just going to note the laughability of all "remedies" shown herein: - Suggestion that he file an "appeal" of community ban (which will be instantly reverted and ignored, since he's "banned"). - Suggestion that he somehow will be able to participate in an RFAR while blocked, when we know full well the arbcom will simply filter his email address into their trash and make a decision with no input
The fact that this comes to arbcom is no surprise, it's just the next step in the crusade by certain wikiadmins to attempt to destroy any and all reasonable dissent on wikipedia.
Oh, don't worry. I won't be back. I'm going to go have some popcorn, sit back, and watch the fun as you do your level best to show that wikipedia is completely and totally without fairness as you pillory a good administrator for Being Bold and trying to fix a problem, rather than taking advantage of someone being blocked to throw tons of personal attacks at them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.25.141.60 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Gamaliel
I haven't examined Blu Aardvark's history extensively, but based on what I do know I'm not sure that there's anything there so egregious that he can't be unblocked. However, his involvement with WR must be taken to account. I understand why some users want to judge BA only by his conduct on WP. The idea that you can come here and not be judged by whoever you are or whatever you've done in real life is a noble principle, but to pretend that off-site actions have no bearing on WR is incredibly naive. Things that have happened on WR have had a direct bearing on the operation of Wikipedia and even the off-site lives of contributors and thus his activities on WR must be considered here. To operate a forum where blackmailers and stalkers are not only allowed to participate but are praised and encouraged is to participate in the victimization of other Wikipedians. To allow him to return without at the very least preventing the use of his forum in this manner is to endorse the vicitimization of other Wikipedians. Gamaliel 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Will Beback
I echo Lethe's request that the ArbCom also review the role of IRC in administrative actions. It is impossible to review comments made there, users may use any nickname, and only a fraction of editors and admins watch it at any given time. According to comments made by Linuxbeak, he apparently discussed his unblocking action on IRC and viewed that as sufficient. I also ask that the ArbCom review the actions of the admins involved in the unblocking. -Will Beback 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Grace Note
Blu has personally attacked me several times, vandalised my userpage and basically made a thorough prick of himself where I'm concerned. But on my account, I'd be willing to see him given another chance. It's not as though I'm particularly bothered by any of that stuff. However, he has not only extended those attacks to other editors, who very much are bothered, and vandalised other pages, but has facilitated and encouraged attacks on editors here that go far beyond "criticising" them. I agree with El C that he has not shown but should show not only due contrition for that but also willingness not to continue to encourage it. I agree with Kim that offwiki shit should not stick onwiki, at least generally, but I think providing a platform for the personal harassment of editors is a special case. I think that you could argue that the wiki is extended into that platform. While no one is, I hope, going to argue that the policies of Wikipedia should extend to other sites, it's reasonable to expect that when the interior politics of Wikipedia are conducted elsewhere, that can have ramifications here.
I haven't seen any sign that Blu recognises that the harassment of Katefan0 was not a triumph for Wikipedia's "critics" but a severe case of bullying that he should join us in deploring. It's not the first time Daniel Brandt has bullied Wikipedians. His talk of "accountability" is nothing more than a smokescreen for the kind of powertripping Blu is quick to criticise in the pro-wikians. It seems that if you are "anti", you can get away with anything in Blu's books. I am mystified how it makes Katefan0 or anyone else more "accountable" if you threaten to try to lose them their livelihood. This seems clearly aimed at scaring them into doing what the person making the threat wants. Facilitating that is a big black mark. (I look forward to my forthcoming appearance in the Hivemind. BTW, anyone interested in this kind of behaviour might like to google the name "Jay Stevens" aka "Jay Maharaj". Jay often posts the personal details of people who disagree with him on Usenet in an attempt to coerce them into agreement or silence. I think being the poor man's Jay Maharaj is not something I'd want for my epitaph but it does make me think of him when I see Daniel's posturing and I smile, because Jay at least doesn't pretend to be doing anything noble and seems quite content to be widely despised, while Daniel just wants to be petted.)
I know also that Blu says he apologised to SlimVirgin for his attacks on her. I don't know that I've ever seen any actual contrition though. Whether you agree with what Slim does or not, and I often don't, she is trying to make a decent work here, and her actions aim at that end by her lights. Surely we can disagree without needing to defame her, and without allowing others to use forums we create to defame her in a way that even Blu must be aware would be personally distressing. In this connection, even allowing Amorrow to post on your forum is a sign of ill will towards Slim and other female admins here.
Okay, none of this has much to do with the wiki and you can argue that so long as he's constructive, Blu should be allowed back on a tight leash. But I think he does need to think these things over too.
Oh, and Jay, I think you should recuse yourself. Not that I personally am making any judgement on your fitness to consider the case, but your close connection to Slim and your having been a target of aggression from the trollboard do call your ability to be neutral into question for those who'd care to question it. Grace Note 04:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Mytwocents
Perhaps the alleged WR actions of Blu Aardvark are a red herring. Haven't his actions on Wikipedia alone warranted a long ban? Should we redeem a user, whom by his own admission, has used 56 sockpuppets? How many sockpuppets should bring about a permanent block? 3?, 12?, 100?, How egregious does a persons behavior on wikipedia have to be, to be banned? We have lost Katefan0. Should that change the way we deal with vandals and trolls from now, into the future? I think it should. The loss of a fine admin because of personal attacks should serve as a springboard for a new, stricter standard of behavior here. Enforcement of such a standard requires a long term block of users, who have proven themselves to be attackers, rather than editors, of good faith. Mytwocents 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
PS I do choose to see this apology by Blu as genuine. However, if Blu returns, he needs to prove his redemption by actively contributing, without tripping into uncivil behavior. He needs to actively show the zeal of the converted. In the end, all this means is acting like an adult, controlling his temper, and consistently applying the Golden Rule. Mytwocents 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Malber
I concur with most of what El_C and Grace Note has said. If this was simply a matter of a juvenile vandal or edit warrior, then Blu's contrition would be fine. But it's not. A lot of damage has been done due to the atmosphere encouraged on Wikipedia Review. Blu needs to own up to his culpability in that as a moderator of that site. To date he has not and continues to deny it calling the idea "bullshit." And any idea that he may not be a moderator there is someone being naive or attempting to disemble. Continuing to moderate a Wikipedia terrorist site and requesting to return as a valued contributor, no matter how mentored, are conflicting objectives. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Blu has recently disavowed himself of Wikipedia Review.com and set up a new forum at .org. It remains to be seen what nature of discussion this new forum will have. But based on my interaction with Blu prior to his vandal spree, I feel that it should a better place for discussion than the last two incarnations. My main problem with the original site was the administration by MSK. Now I'm more certain than ever that they will self destruct from their own self loathing. Due to these changes in events, I support Blu's unblock with probation and possibly mentorship. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response from Blainetologist
- Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark/Proposed decision where it was misfiled. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been through things before, and Raul654 was helpful enough to see through some very hurtful and incivil people to allow me to learn to edit. I don't like people attacking him.
I've been trying to read this and it looks like this is a case without basis. Raul654 and Linuxbeak were trying to help someone prove they could exist peacefully, and other administrators in violation of blocking policy which states it should not be a punitive measure decided they would war over it because of their personal hatreds.
As I understand it, before now the existence of items outside wikipedia had no bearing on these cases. I do not know what changed this, but it seems important. I have attempted to read up on these but it seems that this person merely had a conflict with some of the same people who attacked me?
I also am surprised at the institution of another yearlong ban on this person? Is he not already under a ban? Has he done anything on wikipedia to deserve such an extension? Did he request this arbitration? Was he even allowed to present evidence to it?
I really think that Raul654 and Linuxbeak did the right thing, and in reading the page history on these cases it appears other evidence was removed? Why would you remove evidence from pages?
If I am responding in the wrong place, please tell me. I'm not sure where these thoughts should go. Blainetologist 17:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Please place all threaded discussions below
