Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] User namespace vs article namespace
There are rules for the user namespace as well, though. Among them is that the user namespace is not a personal webspace. Which means that Anthony's resurrection of Shawn Mikula is valid if and only if he intends it to improve Wikipedia.
The fact that Shawn Mikula has something approaching a record for the most deleted page on Wikipedia, it seems highly implausible that one could reasonably think the article would be recreated. I can think of no good faith reason for recreating Shawn Mikula in one's userspace. One could not plausibly think the article could be recreated. And so it amounted to use of userspace as personal webspace, and, more to the point, to disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate his radically inclusionist point. Snowspinner 20:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I argue that the article was, in fact, improved, while in Anthony's user space:
- Referential links were added
- Inaccuracies were removed
- POV was removed
- This comment is inconsistent with itself and also in the context of your other comments. I read it and it seems to imply that you feel inclusionism is a bad faith principle. Inclusionism is not being challenged here, however, and I consider it irrelevant. On the other hand, Anthony is a professed inclusionist.
- Oddly enough, the opening statement of your evidence submission goes so far to thank Anthony for his inclusionist efforts:
-
- "I want to thank Anthony for his tireless backing of the inclusionist viewpoint. I absolutely do not object to his belief that Shawn Mikula should get an article. I do not object to his expression of that belief."
- However, here, you are attacking that sentiment as disruptive and in bad faith and in his case, "radical".
- Keith D. Tyler ΒΆ [AMA] 21:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Indeed. Inclusionism is not at issue, except insofar as it is the point that Anthony is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate. Snowspinner 21:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recommendation
I recommend to the arbitration committee that User:Anthony DiPierro be banned permanently. I see the discussion has for some reason focused entirely on the recreation of the deleted article Shawn Mikula, but as mentioned by both Snowspinner and Raul654, Anthony DiPierro has a very, very long track record of wasting time and causing disruption. The amount of other peoples time he has wasted, and the amount of ill will he has generated, vastly outweighs what little he has contributed. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Burn the witch! Dr Zen 03:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrect findings of fact
Finding of fact number 7 is indisputably incorrect. The agreement that Mark and I came to had absolutely nothing to do with the previous arbitration ruling, and was not the result of mediation. It was an agreement that Mark and I came to on IRC, without any input from the mediation committee, in order to avoid a separate arbitration request which was later withdrawn.
The referral to mediation in the original arbitration ruling resulted in no one willing to enter mediation with me. In fact, to this day no one has been willing to enter mediation with me. The mediation committee made the following statement after failing to find anyone willing to mediate:
- "Anthony has demonstrated his willingness to mediate; but his adversaries have not. Until they do, we must consider Anthony a Wikipedian in good standing, and any comments to the contrary a demonstration of incivility."
After understanding this, one will also realize that finding of fact number 10 is incorrect as well. The original arbitration had nothing to do with the agreement that was made, so it couldn't have possibly "activated the original arbitration". Anthony 13:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- 10 is not incorrect - the original arbitration refers to the case that was suspended when you entered into the agreement with Raul. The confusion, I think, is on whether or not the case was withdrawn? The standing order notes that your withdrawl from the agreement would send you directly to arbitration - so that's the prior case referred to - the one that the agreement avoided and that, once the agreement became null and void, thus began. 7 is only trivially incorrect - it should read "with the help of the mediation committee," who endorsed the agreement. Snowspinner 14:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
As Snowspinner has pointed out, the "original arbitration" referred to in finding of fact number 10 could be considered to refer to the case that was withdrawn (to use the term on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests) by Mark. However, considering the other findings, this would be misleading at best. The findings read as though the "previous arbitration" recommended mediation, and that the standing order was the result of that mediation. In fact, finding of fact number 11 specifically links the term "evidence in the original arbitration" to the "previous arbitration", so it seems clear to me that either the arbitration committee actually thought the withdrawn case was the same as the previously accepted case, or that they phrased the findings of facts very poorly. Probably both depending on which arbitrator you're referring to. In any case, I think these facts need to be clarified to anyone reading the ruling who doesn't know the full details.
It should also be noted that the mediation committee did not "help make the agreement". Mark decided he wanted three members of the committee to sign the agreement, to give it more authority or whatever, but that's the only way that the mediation committee was involved at all. Feel free to ask the mediation committee members who signed if you don't believe me. Anthony 22:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
