Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro

From Free net encyclopedia

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).

Case closed as of 25th April 2004

Contents

[edit]

Statements from others

  • Anthony is a troll if there ever was one. If needed, I can make a long list detailing his trolling, including his frivolous copyright complaints, his sabotaging of VfD, his creation of a purposeless Wikipedia fork named "McFly," and his nonsensical article edits. His useful contributions, on the other hand, are negligible. I propose a permanent ban. --Wik 22:36, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony will enter an edit war on capitalisation, or practically anything. He also removes things from VfD despite having voted to keep them. This means that users have to check his edits to the VfD page to see if there really was consensus to keep as Anthony wants to keep all articles on people, regardless. [...] I believe Anthony to be a troll, and to be destructive. However he is subtle and clever. He will apologise and then continue. He is polite, but contributes very little of worth, and causes lots of time to be spent. Secretlondon 23:27, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I find Anthony a bit disturbed, to say the least. He often creates articles, then wants them deleted, then redirected, all in a short period of time (see the McFly soap-opera). He also has the nasty habit of spamming VfD at the same time that refuses to put the VfD notices on the listed pages. His actions make all his edits (especially in VfD) very suspicious and time-consuming to check. And God knows what we didn't notice. I can't find one positive contribution to Wikipedia made by Anthony and I am very sorry to say this about a wikipedian. Muriel 17:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have had limited expierence with Anthony. But the expierence I have had was very negative and ultimately led to me being banned for 17 hours and it looks like he will go all 24. Mostly having to do with him taking other people's comments out of context and vandalising the vote tally. I honestly do not understand how he has not already been permenantly banned from Wikipedia but it is definetly a good idea. I do not see much room for growth. GrazingshipIV 19:21, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have a long, extensive war with Anthony. When he first came on Wikipedia, he started an edit war and uploaded inappropriate images. What he does is very disturbing. He has harassed me on numerous occasions and reverts most of my edits. I admit, some of my things in the past were copyvio, and most was admitted, now he calls everything that I add a copyvio. The Al Gore section which he questioned is totally bogus. He feels even after I re-word a sentence and add a quote, it is a copyvio. This never ends. Just look at the page that lists his edit wars with me and other users. He also has tampered with other people's talk and user pages such as King Turtle. I have been calling for a ban for a while now due to his continuing annoying behavior and trolling. I have tried working things out with him, but eventually he goes back to his old ways and harasses me. And as another user said, no one can find one postitive contribution he has made. I know he will say that I haven't either. Nevertheless, you can check out my user page and look at the pages that I have edited or created myself, which I am proud of. I hope he gets the punishment he needs and the people that want to really work here can do so in peace. ChrisDJackson 16:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

Statement by Anthony

There has been no mediation on any of this matter, including the matter regarding VfD. While discussing the issue privately on IRC with User:Eloquence in mid-March, I agreed to take a week off of VfD, which I did. Since taking that week off the number of edits I have been making to VfD has significantly declined, and all of the votes that are listed on the evidence page are taken from before then. I'm perfectly willing to continue discussion regarding VfD, either in mediation or otherwise, and either with Eloquence or anyone else who wishes to discuss it with me. I won't stop voting on VfD, however, unless of course the arbitration committee or Jimbo insists that I do so.

Regarding the edits to the Al Gore page, there has been extensive discussion on why I removed that text - it is plagiarism. With regards to Jerusalem, again, there is extensive discussion on the talk page, not just that one note.

With regard to VfD, I've never voted keep for every page (as was claimed in a proposed finding of fact). I only vote keep for pages I believe should be kept, in fact, the majority of the pages for which my votes were listed as evidence were kept. Along with an extremely small percentage of the votes I made I included a statement which was intended to point out the ridiculousness of the reason given for deletion. It's quite frustrating seeing page after page listed on VfD without even an attempt at giving a legitimate reason for deletion (e.g. "idiosyncratic", that's as much a reason to keep as it is one to delete). In retrospect, including those statements was a mistake, and for that, I apologize. But I will not apologize for voting to keep pages which I firmly believe should be kept. To say I have broken a rule by doing so would send quite a disturbing message: vote however you want, just don't disagree with the arbitrators when you do so. I also don't apologize for making relevant statements along with my votes. For example, Bethany Massimilla is a famous person who works for CNET. To say that I can't explain my votes, especially when some editors will throw out votes which are not explained, is just as unacceptable as saying I can't vote in the first place.

anthony (see warning)

[edit]

Evidence

  • Can I ask the committee whether Anthony should be editing evidence against him, and not signing his comments? Secretlondon 19:23, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Spelling corrections and fixing typos should be fine, but substantial edits to the evidence of others are likely to be changed back sooner or later, and are not likely to make me look upon his actions in general very favourably (I can't speak for other arbitrators, obviously). Not signing comments means that either somebody else has to sign them on his behalf, or else they dig through the page history to see who made these anonymous comments. Personally, I would be unlikely to take comments of unknown authorship very seriously. So I'd consider it helpful and polite if Anthony did not edit other people's evidence, and did sign his comments (the same goes for all other users). --Camembert
    • As an example of this, see [1]. Is behaviour on that page admissable as evidence? Morwen 20:53, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • I see no reason why it wouldn't be. --Camembert
[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on accepting this matter

Accepted by the vote of four arbitrators (possibly)

  • Although one might think that if 5 arbitrators vote to not accept, that would trump the 4 votes which voted to accept. Fred Bauder 01:28, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, that's not quite what it says in the policy. Under "Emergency Session" it just says "4 votes to hear a case will result in the case being heard", and I think the intention was that even if all other arbs voted against hearing a case, so long as four accepted, it would be heard. According to the main body of the policy, under "requests", we're supposed to be both accepting and rejecting this case, which I don't think even we, superhumans that we are, can manage. I only mention this to point out something else in the policy that needs fixing up once the vote is over. I don't mind if we don't actually hear this case at this time, and instead refer it to mediation (though I seem to remember Wik flatly refusing mediation in the past, so I'm not sure what good it will do us). --Camembert

Accept:

  • Accept to consider his spamming and messing around on VfD. Fred Bauder 17:17, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept, for the reasons given by Fred. --Nohat 02:42, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
  • Accept, because I get the impression that's what people in general want us to do. --Camembert 00:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept, tho I agree with Martin's comments below, because we're no longer swamped and it'll be better PR for us to consider it than to "ignore a problem." --the Epopt 03:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't accept:

  • Refer to mediation committee, at this stage. The McFly fork is out of our Jurisdiction, and the issue appears quiet at the moment. I'm not seeing massive demand to arbitrate this matter, nor huge problems arising from Anthony's actions. There does not appear, from the evidence provided, to have been an effort made to go through mediation by those who desire arbitration Anthony. Martin 23:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • mav 01:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) (what Martin said)
  • Delirium 04:23, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) (same)
  • James F. (talk) 09:26, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) (me too, not that it makes much difference)
  • The Cunctator 21:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Looking at the evidence, this is my initial impression: his behavior and edits seem entirely within the bounds of proper editing. I think the other arbitrators know my position on the VfD page--it's something designed to engender conflict. This seems to boil down to personality conflicts, not clearly destructive behavior; rather, his edits to simplify and clarify entries are in the right spirit, even if his tone is not. It seems to me that a lot of people are taking his edits personally, rather than considering their effect on the quality of the article. This is what mediation is for, not arbitration.
[edit]

Discussion by Arbitrators

  • This case has been accepted on the narrow grounds of considering User:Anthony DiPierros activities on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I think the first step is to see whether, in the weeks since this matter was proposed for arbitration, he has continued to play on and with that page. If he has I suggest he be banned from editing that page. I don't think this case has been accepted to consider the more general trolling type behavior he is alleged to have engaged in. That will have to be done later if the community requests it. Fred Bauder 12:08, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
On what grounds do you assert that "this case has been accepted on the narrow grounds of considering User:Anthony DiPierros activities on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion"? The statements at the top of this page seem to suggest a desire for us to look at wider problems than that. --Camembert
I assert that based on the comments made in my vote and the vote of Nohat. Fred Bauder 12:57, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Fred's comments - there are only two votes in favour of accepting the wider case. Lee agreed too, on reflection (via IRC), so I'll make that "official". Martin
  • A survey of VfD shows that Anthony ceased his trolling after March 31, 2004 and has made no further trolling entries there. I propose a finding of fact to that effect and a decision that as the objectionable behavior has ceased that no further action be taken. Fred Bauder 12:57, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Following up on Camembert's suggestion that a wider inquiry is in order I have looked a few of Anthony's user contributions. One pattern that emerges is his repeated removal of detail, see, for example, Edit to Al Gore, Another edit to Al Gore, and edit to Jerusalem. His justification for the edit to Jerusalem. The problem with this behavior which is usually not accompanied by any explanatory comment either to the edit or on the talk page is that it is likely to rile up whoever had previously put the detailed material in. (This is commentary based on a examination of only a few of Anthony's recent edits and may not be part of a general pattern). Fred Bauder 13:34, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Following up on my comment above--I don't take issue with the edits Fred Bauder listed above, but his edits/reversions in Interesting number paradox were puerile. In his defense, it does take two to tango, and Wik started the "rv"s. And we're talking about not even a handful of edits. Again, an indication for referral to mediation in my book. --The Cunctator

Following up on what Fred said, I'd propose the below. Simple, no messing around. Martin 23:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After Anthony added this comment, "With regard to VfD, I've never voted keep for every page. I only vote keep for pages I believe should be kept." I have changed my mind. He doesn't seem to get that simply repeating whatever the person who requested deletion and asserting it as grounds for keeping an article constitutes provocative behavior. I consider the quoted remark as being in bad faith considering the extensive trolling he has done on VfD and recommend a decree banning him from editing FfD and have added it as an alternative decree. Fred Bauder 11:07, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking about banning from VfD, as it happens. I think I could live with that. There's lots of ways to contribute that aren't VfD, though I'd hope a firm instruction would be sufficient. Martin 22:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we should ban Anthony from VfD. A quick look through his recent contributions seems to confirm his claim above that he's not editing there so much, and the edits he is making don't look very troublesome to me (there's certainly nothing as bad as the stuff detailed on the evidence page). A ban (even just from VfD) would be a rather odd way to respond to improved behaviour. --Camembert
That's a good point, Lee. And Anthony has apologised for some aspects of his behaviour (the stuff I find problematic, basically). So I guess I'll oppose a VfD ban for now. Martin 00:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

As Martin noted above, I had a think, and decided I can live with us just dealing with VfD for now if we're going to refer the rest to mediation. I thought there'd already been an attempt at mediation, but evidently I imagined it. The above (older version below) looks ok to me. --Camembert 00:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Decision

The following decision was supported by six arbitrators, with no opposing vote and four de facto abstentions. There were no minority opinions. The supporting arbitrators were: Martin, Camembert, Fred Bauder 20:22, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC), James F. (talk), the Epopt, Nohat.

Decision made 25th April 2004

Findings of fact:

1. While a handful of users have "played around" on wikipedia:votes for deletion (VfD), (eg voting to keep every page listed, listing every list on Wikipedia, etc), doing so is clearly against the established Wikipedia customs and common practices. See also Wikipedia:State your point, don't prove it.

2. Anthony has over a long period of time made a number of provocative edits to VfD for no other apparent purpose than to stir other editors up. This behaviour has now ceased.

  • The comment "Would you rather we just list the white ones?" in VfD discussion over Cristiane Alexandre.
  • The comment "Keep. Seems to be self-promotion for an obscure author and eir book." w.r.t. C. J. Everon and Justice Better Attained
  • A handful of parodying comments between 5th and 12th February, such as "Person who works for CNet. Famous" in response to "person who works for CNet. Not famous"

Decrees:

1. The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages. The arbitration committee does not object to which way Anthony voted, only the manner in which he voted.

2. The issues of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling are referred to the mediation committee.

[edit]

Statement from the Mediation Committee

Concerning the mediation requested by the Arbitration Committee regarding User:Anthony DiPierro and a number of other users:

Although the members of the Mediation Committee have been willing to conduct a mediation and have solicited possible participants, to date no one has stepped forward to be a second party. As it has been the committee's experience that attempting to conduct a mediation discussion with only one party has not been successful, it seems best to wait until there are additional parties willing to participate. 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.

The Mediation Committee is more than willing to mediate this case if and when anyone comes forward with specific concerns.

BCorr & sannse, Co-chairs
On behalf of the Mediation Committee
Copied to User talk:Anthony DiPierro and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro"