Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arminius/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the proscribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

Contents


[edit] Complaint and responses

The primary complaint in this matter regards Arminius actions on Nov 20 & 21 regarding the block of User:Chameleon and protection of apple pie. The previous incidents are included to establish pattern of response by Arminius to those disagreeing with his actions as sysop. Arminius was promoted to sysop Sep 17, 2004 [2].

[edit] Sep 28-30

  • 03:46, 28 Sep 2004
    • Arminius blocks User:Wolfman (disruption, excessive reverts)
    • Note: Wolfman raises no complaint in this case about the original block itself, though he does not agree it was properly imposed. Wolfman 04:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 12:09, 28 Sep 2004
    • User:Guanaco unblocked (The "disruption" section of the blocking policy does not cover users who have a large number of edits and have been here since July)
  • 19:34, 28 Sep 2004
    • Arminius reblocked (Reblocking to coincide with previous 24 hour block)
  • 19:58, 28 Sep 2004
    • Guanaco unblocks (block not supported by current Wikipedia policy)
  • 20:01, 28 Sep 2004
    • Guanaco leaves note for Arminius: "unsupported by policy ... please do not reblock" [3]
  • 06:53, 29 Sep 2004
    • Arminius replies to Guanaco "... will continue to enforce such rules in the future and will continually reblock ..." [4]
  • 21:14, 30 Sep 2004
    • Guanaco replies that he will file an RFC "if you insist on reblocking users over objections by other users and over the limits set by the blocking policy" [5]

Note: Proposed policy allowing a ban for 3-revert infractions is currently (November) up for vote. [6]

[edit] Oct 22/23

  • 20:26, 22 Oct 2004
    • User:Michael Snow leaves note for Arminius that he was lifting an indefinite block against policy [7]
  • 00:40, 23 Oct 2004
    • Arminius replies "Thank you for your interference." [8]

[edit] Nov 12-14

  • 15:37, 12 Nov 2004
    • User:Sam Hocevar Requests information of a reblock by Arminius (originally by User:Silsor). "I would really appreciate an explanation for what looks like an abuse of administrator privileges." [9]
  • 23:50, 13 Nov 2004
    • Arminius deletes request by Sam Hocevar [10]
  • 03:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sam Hocevar files an RFC on the block, noting "quite rudely ignored by Arminius" [11]
  • 21:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Michael Snow removes RFC on Silsor which involves Arminius due to failure to be certified

[edit] Nov 20

See the block log, apple pie history, Talk:apple pie and Talk:Apple pie/Archive.

  • 10:48, 20 Nov 2004
  • 10:51, 20 Nov 2004
  • 10:53, 20 Nov 2004
    • Arminius protects apple pie [14]
  • 11:24, 20 Nov 2004
    • Chameleon protests the revert/protect on Arminius' Talk page [15]
  • 11:32, 20 Nov 2004
    • Arminius removes Chameleon's message with comment "remove troll message" [16]
  • 11:38, 20 Nov 2004
    • Arminius replies to Chameleon "I protected the page rather than blocking you for personal attacks ... " [17]
  • 11:57, 20 Nov 2004
    • Chameleon files arbcom complaint objecting to alleged POV editing by Darrien and the subsequent revert/protection by Arminius. [18]
  • 12:10-12:24, 20 Nov 2004
  • 13:04, 20 Nov 2004
  • 13:16, 20 Nov 2004
    • Arminius reprotects page with comment "(rv, conflict not resolved)" [21]
  • 13:22, 20 Nov 2004
    • Theresa knott unprotects page with comment "(removed prtection again - please don't reprotect unless there is another edit war)" [22]
  • 13:25, 20 Nov 2004
    • Arminius reprotects page with comment " (Reverted edits by Theresa knott to last version by Arminius)" [23]
  • 13:38, 20 Nov 2004
    • Chameleon responds "Liar! Liar!" to a comment of Arminius on Talk:apple pie. In the same edit, makes reference to "American bigots". [24]
  • 13:41, 20 Nov 2004
    • Arminius blocked User:Chameleon (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (continual personal attacks)
  • 13:42, 20 Nov 2004
    • Arminius unprotects page with comment "(Reverted edits by Arminius to last version by Theresa knott)" [25]
  • 17:38, 20 Nov 2004
    • Theresa knott unblocked Chameleon (Continued personal attacks? Read the block policy. You do not have the right to block someone because they called you a liar)
  • 17:45, 20 Nov 2004
    • Theresa knott leaves a message to Arminius explaining that block was against policy. [26]
  • 17:47, 20 Nov 2004
    • User:Solipsist leaves a message to Arminius expressing concern over propriety of the block. [27]
  • 17:50, 20 Nov 2004
    • In an exchage on User_talk:Theresa_knott#Bias, Theress knott "respectfully ask that you just step away from the page becasue it appears to me that you are letting your irritation with Chameleon get in the way of your good judgement" [28]
  • 23:17, 20 Nov 2004
    • User:Wolfman leaves a message to Arminius expressing concern over propriety of the block. [29]

[edit] Nov 21

  • 02:14, 21 Nov 2004
    • Arminius blocked Chameleon (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (reinstatement, personal attacks against multiple users)
  • 05:19, 21 Nov 2004
    • Guanaco unblocked Chameleon (The block is far outside the limits set by the blocking policy and is clearly wrong.)
  • 09:43, 21 Nov 2004
    • Arminius blocked Chameleon (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 21 hours (restoring justified block despite ignorant users)
  • 11:09, 21 Nov 2004
  • 11:15, 21 Nov 2004
    • Mirv leaves a note expressing concern to Arminius with comment "Chameleon - unblocked again + stern warning" [30]
  • 11:45, 21 Nov 2004
    • Arminius replies to Mirv under heading "response to foolishness". Comment is not particularly conciliatory. [31]
  • 11:48, 21 Nov 2004
    • Arminius deletes comments by Theresa knott, Solipsist, Wolfman, Mirv with comment "removing already read/ignorant messages" [32]

He was warned by at least four different users, of whom two are uninvolved sysops (Theresa Knott, Solipsist, Wolfman, and —No-One Jones) but apparently erased their comments from his talk page [33] without archiving.

In the Chameleon incident, Arminius removed complaints with the comments "remove troll message" and remove "already read/ignorant message." He replied to Mirv's complaint with the heading "response to foolishness" and called those who had unblocked Chameleon "ignorant." In response to Mirv's warning he stated "Please feel free to make any case against me you like. I honestly don't care that much."

Wolfman left a note for me:

I see you've brought a case against Arminius. As you probably noticed he blocked me once on a 3-revert infraction in September. I'm not so terribly concerned about that (I was out of line). My concern is that he refused to admit any error and persisted in his actions after others pointed out the error. Guanaco unblocked me [34] and notified Arminius of his error [35]. He re-instated the block anyway [36].

Perusing his history reveals a pattern:

In October User:Michael Snow unblocked [37] another user blocked against policy by Arminius. In reply, Arminius thanked him for his "interference" [38].

Here [39] and here [40], Arminius refuses to provide information providing a reblock. Whether the block was justified or not, the refusal to answer a legitimate query about it is not justified.

Here User:Mark Richards notes that Arminius is again not properly justifying blocks [41].

Here Amenius reverts apple pie then protects it. [42][43] I unproteced it after several users on the talk page said that they essentially agreed with chameleon's assement that the article was biased. I wanted to give them the chance to edit the page. Armenius almost immediately reprotected it [44] even though no edit war had started up again. I reverted him with the edit summary "removed protection again - please don't reprotect unless there is another edit war" But he reverted me none the less. He said on the talk page that he was not interested in the content only in stopping an edit war. Chameleon called him a liar and thats why he blocked him. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 00:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In terms of the user:Sam Hocevar reinstatement of another user's block reviewing the current RFC on Silsor (who is actually blamed by the user in question) which you can see here. There seems to be some issue with the GNAA and some personal issues with Silsor (meaning the user seems to personally dislike Silsor). There is certainly no clarity that the block (and hence later reinstatement) was wholly without merit. Arminius 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: The page I cited above has now been removed by user:Michael Snow for failing to have enough support to stay on RFC. So apparently the community does not feel Silsor's orginal block was without merit, nor my reblock

Just for the record, I do not "personally dislike Silsor", even for calling me not bright, an ass and a troll, or for saying I am from the GNAA. I just dislike his behaviour on that specific issue, where he constantly ignored explanation requests for more than a month. Since it was my first interaction ever with Silsor after months of being on Wikipedia, it's a bit harsh to assume I could personally dislike him. --Sam Hocevar 13:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Breakdown of events with Chameleon from Arminius's Perspective

  • User:Darrien makes an open plea in IRC chat #wikipedia for help in dealing with vandalism
  • Arminius agrees to look into it and follows the link Darrien gives in public chat to Apple pie (a page Arminius previously had never edited nor had any particular interest in).
  • Arminius then chats in private with Darrien (off-channel) about the conflict and how to respond to it.
  • Arminius from viewing the personal attack edit summaries and seeing what to him looks like vandalistic edits, decides to intervene in the edit war between Darrien and Chameleon. He decides against a block on Chameleon at that time for vandalism and POV pushing (as well as personal attacks).
  • Arminius rollbacks Chameleon's edit (which he viewed as vandalism of the article) to set the article to what he thought it looked like before the edit war took place or "original version" and protected the article from any further editing.
  • Arminius then contacts Chameleon at this talk page saying that Chameleon needs to stop POV pushing and engaging in personal attacks. Arminius strongly suggests Chameleon work out the conflict on the talk page 1
  • Arminius tells Darrien on chat he also needs to work out his problems with Chameleon on the talk page of apple pie.
  • Arminius then creates a space on the Apple pie talk page where Darrien and Chameleon can work out their dispute. 1
  • During the process of Arminius trying to create resolve the dispute with both Chameleon and Darrien, Chameleon begins spamming numerous users with a message called "bias" 1
  • Theresa Knott gets one of the spammed messages and unprotects apple pie on request without discussing or informing Arminius before hand
  • user:Vague Rant suggests to Chameleon to write direct personal messages rather than copy and pastesting a prepared response 1
  • Arminius tells Thersa knott about her causing him difficulty in resolving the dispute due to her unprotecting the page.
  • Meanwhile, Darrien posts a message on the apple pie talk page detailing his problem with Chameleons edits.
  • Chameleon intially does not engage darrien saying he disagrees with the page being protected and will not try to resolve the conflict. This could be related to the fact that Chameleon felt like he did not have to engage in resolving the conflict because Theresa knott would unprotect the page.
  • Theresa Knott continues to unprotect the page, as Arminius continually reprotects siteing that the conflict was not resolved (having got no assurance from either party at that point that they would not go back to edit warring.
  • Emboldened by Theresa Knotts unprotection of the page, Chameleon begins using ethnic slurs (American bigots) as well as labeled those who disagree with him as "vandals", as well as taunting Arminius 1
  • Arminius then receives assurance from Darrien in Chat that he will not edit war anymore if the page is unprotected.
  • Arminius tries once again to resolve the dispute.
  • Chameleon then calls Arminius a liar, after which Arminius blocks Chameleon for 24 hours.
  • With an agreement from Darrien to not edit war and Chameleon blocked due to repeated personal attacks (i.e an edit war would not continue) Arminius rollsback the page to Theresa knotts version (most likely just a protection notice) and unprotects the page.
  • Arminius then informs those in the Apple pie talk page that he will not reprotect the page again.
  • About 4 hours later Theresa Knott then unblocks Chameleon claiming that a user can not be blocked for "calling you a liar". This of course is not the reason Chameleon was blocks but for the entirety of his dispution': edit warring, perceived vandalism, personally attacking Darrien, refusing to engage in resolving the conflict about the article, ethnic slurs, continually insulting Arminius.
  • Around 7 hours after that (when Arminius came back on Wikipedia) Arminius reblocks noting that Chameleon was blocked for a wider scope of offenses not just because he called Arminius "a liar".
  • During the time Chameleon is unblocked he reformats his user page saying he will leave wikipedia becauses of "American bigots"
  • About 3 hours after that user:Guanaco unaware of the specifics of the situation unblocks Chameleon.
  • Around 4 hours later Arminius reblocks noteing the fact both previous unblockers (Knott and Guanaco especially) were ignorant of the specifics of the situation and were making decisions without all the information.
  • Finally, around 3 housr after that user:Mirv (who definetly didn't know the specifics) once again unblocks Chameleon and leaves a message on Arminius's talk page that he will pursue action against Arminius should he reblock Chameleon.
  • Arminius realizing at this point he isn't going to be at all successful in making a block stick, leaves a message on Mirv's talk page displaying his intense dissapointment with Mirv's decision and tells Mirv (and all who are following his edits) that he will not block Chameleon again.

[edit] Some questions for Amenius from Theresa

I'm not sure where these should go. If people dissaprove of them here please feel free to move them to the talk page. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 13:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)