Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arminius

Case Opened on November 22, 2004

Case Closed on 16th December 2004

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
I am requesting that Arminius have his adminship revoked due to his/her abuse of administrator privileges. Arminius seriously abused his admin privileges in blatant violation of the blocking policy and Protection policy. He has also used personal attacks. For a full account of the evidence, see Requests for arbitration/Arminius/Evidence.

I am not a participant in this situation, but from my observations Arminius needs to be desysopped. Letting this go by unpunished is seriously wrong for Wikipedia. I also request a temporary injunction that prohibits Arminius from blocking any user. Thank you. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:53, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second this request. Armenius appears to be a person who decides that he is right and that's that. Generally speaking when another admin undoes your action. it's a sign to stand back and take stock. When multiple other admins undo you, then it's a sign that you do not have community support. The fact that Amenius will not even engage in discussion with people on his talk page is not a good sign. I have never asked for someone to be desyopped before. I have always asked that admins be treated as humans not robots and be allowed to make the odd mistake as long as they learn from them. However the protection war he had with me yesterday on apple pie (after he had violated the protection policy by reverting to his preferred version before blocking), and the blocking war he had with a number of people today have convinced me that he is simply not a suitable person for adminship. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 00:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party
I apparently have engaged in actions that warrant a review by the arbitration committee. While I still believe I was right particularly with the user:Chameleon issue, I do realize that due to intensity of controversey about my actions the matter should be investigated. I also submit that I may not have been in step with some of the policy guidelines, particularly the one Mirv pointed out about not blocking in case of controversey.

I would like to say, however, that some previous noted blocks that have been submitted as evidence seem bogus to me. Particularly the Wolfman block (which was in regard to the current issue of the three revert rule) and the reinstating of a block by Silsor (a block which I reinstated because I thought Silsor had given a justification to it with the admin who unblocked said he hadn't). I relented in the Wolfman case because true to fact (which may be changing soon) the three revert rule is not necessarily a blockable offense though Guanaco's reasoning was also out of step with policy. On the Silsor matter I told the admin who unblocked on his userpage that I wouldn't reblock again and yielded to Silsor to fix the situation privately.

But the way I handled the recent situation at Apple pie and with user:Chameleon certaintly deserves to be reviewed as I have put off some fellow Administrators.

So, I therefore will not use any administrative powers until the committee has ruled. This includes page deletions, page protections and most notably blocking any users.Arminius 08:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I responded to some of the statements made above and other allegations in the evidence section and would now like to make a concluding statement as I have to travel (and won't get much computer time) to celebrate Thanksgiving.

In review of the evidence presented and some of my past behavior, I think questioning some of my actions as an Administrator certainly has merit.

The one outstanding issue that I need to work on from my perspective is dealing with more sensitivity towards other users. I have and will continue to review my Wikiquette as I seem to have forgotten some basic manners in some instances. For the most part I make the best effort possible to be courteous but as in Mike Snow and Mirv's case I used language, which while not attacking them could have been softened (though in both cases I agreed to yield to their points without further incident). I generally try to be friendly and easy to work with, but not enough apparently. I need to improve on this issue regardless if I remain an Administrator or not, and I will.

I do not believe I am "always right". I am not a divine ruler or a bot and fully support being questioned on my actions and also fully submit that I have made many mistakes. This most recent incident was easily the worst response I have given to a situation and by my actions, most likely made it worse not better (exactly what I was trying not to do). I disregarded some rather good advice from Theresa namely to just "back off" and let someone else deal with a user who I felt deserved to be blocked. This was the wrong decision to make. In the process of trying to resolve the dispute on apple pie my lapses in good judgment and loss of temper ultimately hurt wikipedia, and for that I am definitely sorry and apologize. If I had it to do over again I would have pursued a much different course of action. I hope to see this whole incident as a learning experience which will enable me to respond better to situations like that in the future should I continue to be an Administrator or otherwise.

But I have contributed. I have contributed many articles and done allot of maintenance on wikipedia which is how I earned the votes to become an Administrator (I was elected without one opposing vote). As an Administrator I also have continued to be a good steward for wikipedia, cleaning up articles, deleting vandalism and (for the most part) blocking users for the right reasons. The total of my work as an Administrator, I believe, outweighs the mistakes I have made. Mistakes I have made with good intentions and the best of motives. I have served wikipedia as best I could and am proud of my record despite some of the mistakes. As both an editor and Administrator I have tried to serve the goals of wikipedia, goals I ascribe to.

I hope the issues and events pointed out as other users reviewed my entire record can be viewed as I view them: exceptions to my performance and conduct on wikipedia, not the rule.

I am prepared to deal with the arbitration committee's ruling on this matter in a considerate and responsible way. Should I ultimately be desysoped directly or indirectly by the decision of the committee I will continue to be and strive to be a good wikipedian and will not hold a grudge or throw a fit. I, of course, hope the committee can see past some of my mistakes and allow me to display the knowledge I have gained from them by making amends for my past behavior as an Administrator by being an even better one in the future. Thank you. Arminius 05:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept - this obviously needs to be looked into. --Camembert 00:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 01:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 04:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 04:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)

Request to close case
I'd like to request that the Arbitrators consider closing this case. Arminius and I have talked privately on IRC for the past week or so and have come to agreement that this case should be dropped. Reflecting back on Arminius's actions, I think we could say that all parties could have done better. I'd also like to note that Arminius has voluntarily stopped using administrator rights while this case has been open and has given me his assurances that he will use blocking more responsibly in the further. In light of these facts, and the Arbitration Committee's workload, I'm requesting that this case be dropped or a quick decision be summarily made so that all concerned can put this behind us. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:34, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fred has asked me on my talk page about this. Rather than repeating myself here, please check out the discussion there. Basically - I'd rather the AC ruled on this rather than close it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I responded on your talk. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:23, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

The case has now been closed. James F. (talk) 23:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)