Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a 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 prescribed 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:.

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

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

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 cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:Avillia
Note that in cases dealing with Blu Aardvark's main account, I have only looked from April 1st onward, as this appears to be when the major issues started.

Blu Aardvark has shown remorse for his actions.

 * He has explained the situation in a civil and exact manner.
 * He has shown remorse for his actions and pledges to contribute in a constructive fashion.

The user Blu harassed the most, Raul654, has forgiven him.

 * Of the 53 sockpuppet contributions, by far the most harassed user was Raul654. (This is a good example.)
 * Raul654 has forgiven Blu for his transgressions and supports his unblocking. (ANI, Block Log, and the fact he submitted this arbitration case.)

Blu Aardvark has harassed other editors.
SlimVirgin: NicholasT: (Who has endorsed a unblock, I believe.) Kelly Martin:
 * Five username violations,   , none of which edited.
 * A handful of venomed edits,, (2-3x reincorporated on various socks), and the whole mess at Blu's talk page.
 * Some uncivil commentary on his talk page.
 * The mess on Blu's talk page.
 * Note that NicholasT was technically the blocking administrator.
 * The talk page incident.
 * Various incivil remarks made along with other commentary.
 * Note that she was the first indefinite blocking administrator. (Block conflict.)

WikipediaReview has one purpose.
Note that I do not believe actions taken on WikipediaReview should be included in this case; I include this to defend against these accusations regardless of their inclusion in the decision process.

WikipediaReview has one purpose: To discuss, in a unoffical capacity, usually in a critical fashion, the structure and events of Wikipedia.

To some, this means harassment.

 * Like Snowspinner.
 * And Katefan.
 * And the classic 'Female Cabal' idea.

To some, this means analysis.

 * Snowspinner's Article.
 * Attempts to expand NPA.
 * And Baidupedia.

However, Blu Aardvark has not harassed administrators there.

 * A list of all Blu Aardvark's posts on WikipediaReview.

He likely does not have the authority to "filter" posts.

 * One of the very bad issues with admitting off-wiki evidence as a argument for on-wiki action is the existance of extenuating circumstances with off-wiki evidence. It is very possible, if not probable, that Blu Aardvark does not have the authority to edit and remove posts which are not a extreme violation of the rules of his domain.
 * As you can see here, he is on the third "tier" of staff members in WikipediaReview. It is quite possible he has agreed to not filter such posts or, optionally, does not have the literal capability to.
 * Ignoring the ethical issues that may be raised by asking for the "control" of off-wiki resources in exchange for on-wiki reward, ethical issues which I am doubtless someone else will bring up, we should not request of him something which he cannot possibly accomplish.

He has left WikipediaReview.
He has expressed his discontent with the conduct on WikipediaReview, including the harassment and the stalking and so forth, and has resigned as a administrator of WikipediaReview. Furthermore, it appears he will not participate in WikipediaReview much at all past this date. 

Blu Aardvark has generally been a good editor.
From his contributions in the main space.
 * He has made roughly 200 vandalism reversions in the mainspace, including move-page vandalism.
 * He corrected about 100 redirects, between improper formatting and double redirection.
 * He tagged some 100 articles as stubs or articles needing cleanup.

Blu Aardvark is an administrator of Wikipedia Review
Blu Aardvark was one of the original members of Wikipedia Review, a forum that hosts criticism of Wikipedia, even vicious and probably-untrue criticism; the site also permits users to post personal information about Wikipedians, and incitements to borderline harrassment (perhaps not illegal harassment, but certainly Harassment). As a consequence, Wikipedia Review is widely hated. Blu Aardvark is an administrator there, and potentially has the ability to remove objectionable statements, but nevertheless permits them to be posted. Example statements:


 * Selina (User:Mistress Selina Kyle, currently community-banned), who is to the best of my knowledge another administrator at Wikipedia Review, suggests that User:SlimVirgin is actually not a Jew, but rather a neo-Nazi.
 * blissy2u (User:Zordrac, currently banned) concurs: "Slim Virgin is quite actively working against the Jewish community, whilst simultaneously claiming to be Jewish."
 * But Ben (no Wikipedia username listed; believed to be User:Benapgar) disagrees, although still disparaging SlimVirgin, and is also not silenced.
 * Sgrayban (User:Sgrayban, also banned from Wikipedia), a moderator, says User:SlimVirgin "is a plane jane used up ho that can't earn even 1 euro for a blowjob so she gets on wikipedia where she can ban and harass others just to get wet and rub her scabby c.u.n.t."
 * Surfer (no Wikipedia username listed) responds angrily to the "gutter language", although also strongly criticizing SlimVirgin.
 * Daniel Brandt posted a message revealing the identity of administrator User:Katefan0, who intended to keep her identity private. This causes Katefan0 to leave the project. Note that Brandt also posts it elsewhere (link available by e-mail upon request).

Jimbo has said that "Some of the people who post to Wikipedia Review are or could be legitimate critics, with thoughtful and perhaps even interesting criticisms of things that we have done wrong, either through honest mistakes, human failings, or bad policy. . . . But those who are potentially legitimate critics do themselves a serious disservice by participating in a forum with people who are, quite simply, mental cases, and who discredit the entire operation with what can only be classified as offensive hate speech and  stalking."

As for User:Blu Aardvark's role in Wikipedia Review, a user with that name has administrative privileges there, and User:Blu Aardvark readily acknowledges that he is the same individual. That point cannot be seriously disputed. However, there seemingly are other administrators. Lir (User:Lir) is in the same usergroup as Blu Aardvark, "Staff". I have reason to believe, based on statements made in #wikipedia by an IRC user I have good reason to believe is Selina (User:Mistress Selina Kyle), that she also has some kind of administrative privilege on the board. I am not aware of any evidence that would clarify whether Blu Aardvark would be capable of banning these kinds of statements, or if he could be overruled by someone.

Evidence presented by Thatcher131
A timeline showing when Blu Aardvark was unblocked in relation to when the Wikipedia community was notified.

Linuxbeak's unblocking of Blu Aardvark
At 21:58 May 28, unblocks  and. 5 minutes later, he posts a notice to WP:ANI. The descision was made after a discussion on IRC. Much acrimonious discussion ensues on WP:ANI, during which Linuxbeak says this was not a community decision but then says that a "sizable" part of the community is on IRC. At 23:54 (about 2 hours later), Blu Aardvark is reblocked by FeloniousMonk.

Raul654's unblocking of Blu Aardvark
At 00:23 on May 31, unblocked Blu Aardvark with the summary (Discussed in IRC and decided to unblock). The first notification to WP:ANI was made at 00:38 by. (Although no one specifically says so, Avillia and Raul must have been among the discussants on IRC, for Avillia to know about the unblocking before Raul654 posted an official notice.) Raul654 first commented at 00:45. Again, acrimonious discussion ensued. and Raul654 briefly wheel-war over the block, with Avillia stirring the pot. At 01:42 (about 1 hour after it started), Blu Aardvark was reblocked by JoshuaZ.

Evidence presented by lethe
Added to address Avillia's very loud admonition above: My statement speaks not to whether Blu Aardvark should be unblocked, but rather to the behaviours of Linuxbeak and Raul in the handling of the unblocking. Raul has attempted to restrict the focus of the case by asking that it not consider peripheral matters such as his own actions. Several users (including myself) posted statements before the case was accepted by the ArbCom asking that the scope of the case be expanded, comments which Raul subsequently moved to the talk page. It is not at all clear to me whether the ArbCom accepted this case solely under Raul's parameters or whether they will consider the broader policy issues raised during the ensuing flamewar; whether they will consider the other users' statements. My evidence speaks only to the latter, so if it's the former, then my statement is irrelevant. If some Arbitrator will inform me, I will either remove this comment, or withdraw my evidence altogether depending on what the scope of the case is.

Blocking policy stipulates "If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without discussing the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate" and "In the absence of such an unambigous error, do not undo another admin's blocks without prior discussion". It seems that some admins feel that an IRC conversation suffices, but community reaction clearly shows that this is a dangerous prospect. I am inclined to think that Blu Aardvark should be given another chance, but I must object to the disrespect for policy and community exhibited in the means to achieve what must be admitted is a controversial unblock.

Linuxbeak
Linuxbeak shows an unwillingness or inability to respect policy and community consensus.


 * Linuxbeak first discusses how he arrived at this decision in an IRC conversation after some protest arises.
 * He says that he's appointing mentors, but never responds to queries for more information (who are these mentors?).
 * After loads of arguments complaining not about his decision to un-ban, but rather about his process (or the lack thereof) and failure to consult the community, offers an apology for breach of policy, while simultaneously admitting that he doesn't know whether he has indeed done so.  Again here claims that he has no idea what he's done wrong  (I wonder what he thinks he's apologizing for?  It is in effect, a non-apology).
 * Refuses to apologize to the people hurt the most by his actions, because their reactions are "not [his] fault" (what's one thing got to do with the other?).
 * Of note is this post by Will Beback very early in the debate which illustrates exactly which policy has been violated and suggests that adherence to policy might have save everyone all this trouble.  I suppose Linuxbeak didn't read it, or he might have known why he was apologizing.
 * A request to "stop using IRC to circumvent community consensus" by El C falls on deaf ears.
 * Also Linuxbeak offers slightly critical remarks (earlier diff) about SlimVirgin for withdrawing from the discussion "left in a huff instead of participating in discussion" not long before Linuxbeak himself leaves in a huff and withdraws from discussion.

Raul
Raul shows the same inability to respect community opinion by unblocking without discussion. I think Raul has not understood that many people object not to the unblocking (or at least not only to the unblocking), but to the circumvention of policy.


 * Raul unblocks based on a conversation in IRC, flouting the long discussion of why discussion must happen on Wikipedia rather than IRC. See block log, edit summary "Discussed in IRC and decided to unblock".
 * FloNight's request to Raul that the community, especially the people affected most by the intended unblocks, be consulted.
 * Another request by El C to stop using IRC to carry out Wikipedia policy is not met with any consideration by Raul.
 * I reblock Blu Aardvark, Raul re-unblocks, a short instance of wheel warring.
 * Raul finally withdraws gracefully, admitting it is a matter for ArbCom to settle, and here we are.

Wikipedia Review's purpose is to tear down Wikipedia
has already provided evidence that Blu Aardvark is clearly an administrator of Wikipedia Review. I don't need to re-establish that fact. This is a site that actively engages in threats, harassment, intimidation, and personal attacks of Wikipedia editors. Very recently, Selina, the site admin, issued in a post on the site a call to collect the IP addresses of Wikipedia users for the purposes of intimidation:

"'I'm sure Daniel Brandt would love to help us match up IPs to names (although I can probably do most or all of it myself)....It would be very much appreciated if you or anyone else could supply me or any other administrator with a log of that conversation [from IRC] and /whois nickname (which shows IP) of the IRC usernames that said the incriminating things. Thank you anyone for any help.'"

This post remains despite Blu's resoponsibility to moderate the site.

As an administrator and moderator of WR, Blu Aardvark has a responsibility for its content. However he has himself stated that he does not believe he is culpable and shows a complete lack of contrition. In a post on the site he states:

"'First of all and allow me to make clear that Wikipedia Review did NOT out Katefan0. Daniel Brandt outted Katefan0 ON his hivemind page, and ON Wikipedia and before anything was posted about it here. I wasn't even aware of the conflict until Katefan0 had already left the project. Why? Because I have something called a “real life” and I wasn't even at my computer during the time the situation developed."

"'Now, some Wikipedians are arguing that, because we didn't do something about Brandt's behaviour and we have aided and abeted in the stalking of a Wikipedian. Allow me to sum this up in one phrase - bullshit.' (emphasis mine)"

I submit this evidence under the policy for WP:NPA.

On-wiki evidence
displays lack of contrition regarding Wikipedia Review incidents in his apology. Excerpts from this diff:
 * "I do not accept responsibility for the actions of the members of the forum..."
 * "Brandt's actions are Brandt's actions. Katefan0's actions are Katefan0's actions. SlimVirgin's actions are SlimVirgin's actions. It is my actions that I assume responsibility for, but I cannot and will not assume responsibility for the actions of others, even if things may have transpired differently had I made certain decisions in regards to Wikipedia Review. (I do not feel things would have transpired differenty, however.)"

Wikipedia Review is a moderated forum. Blu Aardvark has been shown to be a moderator on that site and even perhaps the sole moderator. Yet he feels that he is not responsible for its content. Being moderator of a site whose sole purpose is to terrorize Wikipedia and trying to be a valued contributor on Wikipedia are conflicting goals. I question Blu Aardvark's intentions on requesting to be unblocked.

Evidence presented by Will Beback
Other editors have done a great job of presenting evidence regarding the blocking policy, the IRC matter, and the issue to taking responsibility for errors, which were the three points I covered in my request for arbitration. An issue that hasn't been covered is the matter of the success rate of mentoring. Since it has been proposed that Blu Aadvark return under a similar arrangement we should review one of the previous cases. The mentorship of User:JarlaxleArtemis (JA) has been offered as an example to follow.

Mentorship case study
In the summer of 2005 JA was involved in his second ArbCom case, and a one-year ban had been proposed. He lashed out against LinuxBeak (LB), Anthere, and Psychonaut across Wikimedia and was immediately banned from all projects indefinitely by Anthere.

According to the positive account in Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-14/Unbanning_and_mentorship written by user:Redwolf24 (RW), LB offered JA an opportunity to return with changed behavior. After a private discussion with David Gerard but with no visible community input, RW established the mentorship committee and unblocked JA, under the mentorship of LB and two others. LB announced the unbanning on the AN and posted the requirements unbanning on JA's talk page. The other two mentors also posted welcoming notes on JA's talk page, which was their sole visible activity as mentors.

LB posted a few notes to JA over the next couple of weeks, one of which included a mid-December deadline to fulfill the unbanning requirements or be reblocked. That was the last visible involvement by LB as a mentor, less than one month into the one year mentorship. The unblocking requirements went unfulfilled and were later deleted by JA from his user talk page.

Complaints from users immediately began appearing on JA's talk page, complaints about same issues which had been the subjects of previous ArbCom cases. In response JA argued that the rules weren't correct, deleted the messages, or simply ignored them. For example, this interchange:


 * [Mistake described]...Please learn how this site works before making edits like that in the future. DreamGuy 03:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. &rArr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The mentors were nowhere to be seen, though they were active on Wikipedia. By mid February 2006 more than a dozen complaints appeared on JA's page, and concerned editors began trying to figure out what to do. Messages were left on LB's talk page,, at AN/I, and at the Mentorship Committee talk page, but got no response from the mentors. In March, after another set of requests LB said "I'll look into it", but did nothing publicly. In April, after LB told me by email that he was too busy to continue as a mentor, I took over. Acting with other users (not the remaining assigned mentors) we got JA to fulfill his forgotten requirements, start responding to complaints, etc. To his credit, JA has not reverted to his worst behavior since his return, and is growing more mature, but he has needed much more mentoring than he was getting.

As a result of this history I believe the original mentorship was a failure, and that the Mentorship Committee is not up to the task of monitoring problem users. So far as I can tell, there are no follow-up procedures, no functioning communications, etc. Fundamental problems are that the job requires one to be a policeman/therapist/teacher, while most of us came here to be editors, and that it is a bureaucracy requiring procedures and maintenance. Those deficiencies should be addressed, in another forum, before new cases are assigned to it by the ArbCom or by goodwill ambassadors. -Will Beback 08:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cyde Weys
Blu Aardvark has repeatedly been disruptive. He's made anti-semitic remarks (calling Jayjg "Jewjg") and continually accused well-respected members of the community as being trolls and abusing their administrator rights. Some of his personal attacks were really quite direct. I've gone through his contributions and I've pulled out a fair number that accurately show how Blu Aardvark attacks other editors and responds to criticism. Stay tuned ...
 * 
 * "Two words: Fuck. You. And goodbye, I'm going on Wikibreak."
 * Restores previous personal attacks
 * Accuses SlimVirgin of going on a "censorship spree", rants against the "elitist cabal", calls SlimVirgin "ignorant" and an "abusive PoV pusher".
 * Restores personal attacks again
 * Declares "indefinite Wikibreak", calls SlimVirgin, Grace Note, and Raul654 "trolls".
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

There Is No Vicarious Responsibility For Off-Wiki Attacks
WP:NPA is not policy as yet, and as such off-wiki attacks cannot currently be considered to be violations of WP:NPA. I would like to point out what WP:NPA actually says: "Off-wiki attacks may influence actions taken for other violations of policy. For example, off-Wikipedia personal attacks can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process, for an admin trying to decide whether a user should be blocked for a violation or given another chance, or in more extreme cases, as evidence in an ArbCom decision."

Nowhere in this policy is there mention of vicarious responsibility for the actions of others, whether that be posts on a forum that an individual has moderator status on, or actions by individuals that may be associated with the user in other some way. That means that an individual's association with a web forum, such as Wikipedia Review, cannot be used as evidence against them.

If the policy comes into force (which I oppose), then only off-wiki attacks made directly by the user can come under the scope of this policy, WP:NPA does not extend to any and every individual that a user is associated with.

If we allow demonisation of individuals purely on the basis of their association with entities critical of Wikipedia I fear that the reputation Wikipedia is beginning to accrue over its hostility to criticism can only grow. Wikipedia has nothing to fear from outside criticism.

Wikipedia Review Does Not Harass People
Even though I reject this guilt-by-association argument, I would like to address Malber's evidence directly. The only evidence he provides that Wikipedia Review "is a site that actively engages in threats, harassment, intimidation, and personal attacks of Wikipedia editors" is an out of context quotation, the full version of which reads: "Legal action will be taken against those who deliberately disrupt this website through spam denial-of-service attacks or otherwise. I'm sure Daniel Brandt would love to help us match up IPs to names (although I can probably do most or all of it myself)...It would be very much appreciated if you or anyone else could supply me or any other administrator with a log of that conversation [from IRC] and /whois nickname (which shows IP) of the IRC usernames that said the incriminating things. Thank you anyone for any help." A position not unlike that of Wikipedia itself.

A site which allows people to post freely cannot be held responsible for the actions of its users, particularly not the actions of its users away from said site. This applies as much to Wikipedia as it does to Wikipedia Review. Admins on wikipedia would not wish to be held personally responsible for the actions of individual Wikipedia editors, and neither should members of Wikipedia Review.

Evidence presented by Blu Aardvark
Currently, this is primarily a direct response to Cyde's accusations.

While it is true that I at one point referred to Jayjg as "Jewjg", this did not occur on Wikipedia, nor did I directly call him that. It was not intended as an anti-semitic remark. Note that I have attempted to clarify this point on several occasions, including in a particularly long statement made by myself on my talk page, and once on the mailing list (although I don't have a link handy at the moment, and it may take me some time to hunt it down).

I do not disagree with the assertion that I have repeatedly "been disruptive", although I do not think that the evidence Cyde has presented is in any way representative of my actions on Wikipedia. I began editing Wikipedia in July of 2005. I became inactive for several months starting in late August, and became active again in mid-December.

The first evidence of disruptive behaviour occured in March, at an early stage in an escalating conflict. The last diff provided occured in April, and is taken out of context.

As a brief summary, I had two months of edits which could be considered nothing but constructive (July-August), three months away from Wikipedia (September to December), three months of decent edits, although a mixed bag because of my increasing involvement in an innaccurate view of wiki-politics (December to March), and two months of editing which tended to be more disruptive and inflammatory than beneficial (March to May). I would argue that the net value of my contributions has been positive, although clearly some focus should be made on the negative aspects as well.

While I cannot provide actual proof for this statement (these are teh internets, after all), it may be worth knowing that I do have an emotional disorder (actual diagnosis unclear), which can explain to some extent my increasingly disruptive behaviour in the light of increasing pointed accusations against my character. The forum that I administer was being referred to as a "neo-nazi troll board", and I was frequently accused of being a neo-Nazi myself. These accusations were blatantly ad-hominem and quite innappropriate, particularly coming from those who are trusted to adminster this site, creating an increasingly hostile editing environment. I will readily admit, however, that my response to these accusations was also innappropriate.

Note that while I believe that the ban should be overturned, I do not object to official "probation" or "parole" if such is imposed. Indeed, I feel that such a middle ground would benefit both myself and the project, more so than simply overturning the ban (or allowing the ban to remain).

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.